1. Department of History and Government School of Liberal Arts B.A. in History CIP Code: 540101 Program Code: 130 1 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010

2. I.I. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Student-Learning Outcomes 2

3. Program Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes Program Goal 1: Mastery of Historical Knowledge Program Goal 2: Mastery of Analytical Skills Program Goal 3: Mastery of Expository Argumentation Program Goal 4: Mastery of Synthetic Writing Associated Student- Learning Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory* ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: 1) U.S. History 2) European History 3) World History. Satisfactory performance means that each student will perform within five percentile points of the national mean as defined by the Educational Testing Service’s Major Field Test in History (please note that this is a transition year to a new assessment instrument so we are still using the ETS’s national mean as explained elsewhere Associated Student- Learning Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to analyze historical texts for meaning. Associated Student-Learning Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. Associated Student-Learning Outcome 4: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession. Core Skill Emphasized: application Core Skill Emphasized: analysis Core Skill Emphasized: argumentation Core Skill Emphasized: evaluation Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 20103

4. Student-Learning Outcomes Analyzed in this PQIR – In keeping with discussions of the History Program Assessment Committee from Spring Term 2010, the following priority objectives were assessed this cycle: Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Program Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes 4

5. II. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Alignment of Outcomes 5

6. Correspondence between History Program Learning Outcomes and the Cameron University Mission: Fostering Engaged Citizenship: –The strong role of the History Program in the General Education mission of Cameron University assists in improving retention and graduation by providing both majors and non-majors with basic college-level writing and thinking skills, equipping them to be active and effective citizens. Student-Centered, Experiential & Practical Learning for the Long Run: –The practical and experiential approach to what is a core humanities discipline that the History Program faculty take to teaching the historian’s skills of document analysis, expository writing, and synthetic writing ensures that History courses serve student needs for lifelong learning as well as their professional aspirations and allows for steady program improvement. Preparing Students for Professional Success: –History Program faculty work to provide students with professional experiences that will lead to their future success and enrich their experience at CU including: conference participation, departmental faculty presentations, and introductions to the graduate education experience. Contributing to the Community: –History Program faculty engage with colleagues in the CU community and members of the public to promote productive dialogue across a range of issues. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 20106 Alignment of Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes I

7. Alignment of Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes II Correspondence between History Program Learning Outcomes and School of Liberal Arts Mission: Quality Baccalaureate programs in the Humanities: – History Program faculty provide students a rigorous training in the basic historical knowledge of all major world regions, analytical skills, and synthetic and expository writing, which prepare majors for careers in academia, teaching, law, and business, among other career tracks. To assist students in the application of these skills in different contexts, program faculty also work to provide students with professional experiences that will lead to their future success and enrich their experience at CU, including: conference participation, departmental faculty presentations, and introductions to the graduate education experience. General Education: – The History Program plays a fundamental role in the General Education mission of the School of Liberal Arts. It assists in improving retention and graduation by providing both majors and non-majors with basic analytical skills and an increased capacity to undertake synthetic and expository writing in its general education offerings, equipping them to be active and effective students and citizens. Student-Centered Learning: – To assist in the process of achieving the program’s major student-learning outcomes, History faculty use a variety of creative approaches to bring students into the learning process, including role-playing games & simulations, intensive document analysis and group discussion, interactive lecturing, public history, and apprenticeship-based learning. Community Outreach Through Faculty Scholarship, Community Partnerships, and Public Lectures, Symposia, and Outreach efforts: – In order to support the primary student-learning outcomes, History Program faculty maintain their disciplinary engagement by interacting with colleagues in the CU community and members of the public through scholarship within and across disciplines; public lectures and academic conferences; and teacher institutes, policy forums, and other public venues. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 20107

8. Correspondence between History Program Learning Outcomes and Department of History & Government Mission: Baccalaureate programs in History, Social Studies Education and Political Science: – History Program faculty provide History, Political Science, and Social Studies Education Majors with rigorous training in historical knowledge of all major world regions, analytical skills, and synthetic and expository writing, which help prepare them for careers in academia, teaching, law, and business, among other career tracks. Program faculty also assist majors in these programs and History Majors in particular with the application of these skills by providing them with a range of professional experiences including: conference participation, departmental faculty presentations, and introductions to the graduate education experience. These activities are central to the department’s mission of providing majors and/or minors in History, Political Science, Social Studies Education, and Humanities given the strong History component in each of these degree programs. General Education: – History Program 1000- and 2000-level courses stress analytical skills and an increased capacity to undertake synthetic and expository writing, which correspond to three of the four of the program’s student-learning outcomes and are also core skills that lead to improving retention and graduation by providing both majors and non-majors. Consequently, through its general education offerings --History 1483, 1493, 1113, 1123, 2113, and 2123– the History Program plays a major part in the General Education mission of the Department of History & Government, equipping majors and non-major alike to be active and effective students and citizens Community Outreach Through Faculty Scholarship, Community Partnerships, and Public Lectures, Symposia, and Outreach efforts: – In order to support the History Program’s primary student-learning outcomes, History Program faculty maintain their disciplinary engagement by interacting with colleagues in the CU community and members of the public through scholarship within and across disciplines; public lectures and academic conferences; and teacher institutes, policy forums, and other public venues. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 20108 Alignment of Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes III

9. Correspondence between History Program Learning Outcomes and the Cameron University Plan 2013: In keeping with Cameron University’s Plan 2013, the History Program has focused its student-learning outcomes to enrich students’ lives in terms of practical skills and knowledge, their cultural and intellectual foundations, and their experiences with the university community, the wider world of Southwest Oklahoma, the region, and the nation as outlined below. Relevant to GOAL I, subsection 1:Maintain and enhance Cameron’s commitment to providing programs of the highest quality in instruction, research, and service to better meet the needs of the citizens of the region History Majors receive a rigorous, skills-oriented training in the History Program’s core curriculum and in elective classes in a) factual knowledge of the histories of all major world regions with particular emphases on: the U.S. the Caribbean Latin America Africa Europe b) analytical skills c) expository argumentation d) synthetic writing Ours is also the only History Program in the State (including the Research I institutions) that gives students a Sophomore and Senior Seminar experience and we are one of a few History Programs that requires both World History and European History as part of the core courses. The academic foundation students receive, then, has unique strengths. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 20109 Alignment of Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes IV

10. Correspondence between History Program Learning Outcomes and the Cameron University Plan 2013: Relevant to GOAL I, subsection 5: Assure efficient, effective course delivery in multiple formats. As part of its efforts to ensure that History Majors and CU students receive breadth of educational experiences to promote the achievement of the program’s four main goals, the History Program is developing a completely online degree program, making a flexible array of online and face-to-face classes available to our majors and the CU student body as a whole. Relevant to GOAL I, subsection 10: Achieve or exceed the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education’s target retention and graduation rates for Cameron University. Through its rigorous General Education program (HIST 1113, 1123, 1483, 1493, 2113, 2223), which is the foundation for History Majors wishing to gain mastery of historical knowledge, analytical skills, expository argumentation, and synthetic writing, the History Program provides all CU students with essential analytical skills as well as expository and synthetic writing skills leading to higher retention and graduation rates. Relevant to GOAL I, subsection 6: Provide opportunities for students and faculty to demonstrate their scholarship in regional and national forums. The department supports both faculty and student travel to present research papers at regional as well as national conferences. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 201010 Alignment of Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes IV

11. Correspondence between History Program Learning Outcomes and the Cameron University Plan 2013: Relevant to GOAL II, subsection 3: Implement centralized academic advisement for lower division students complemented by quality faculty advisement at the upper division levels. As an outgrowth of providing majors with the rigorous training that they require, History Program faculty have increasingly emphasized quality advisement within the History Program (and in particular advisement that helps students to access opportunities here at Cameron and at the next stage their lives) and as part of this process we seek to maximize student exposure to professional opportunities that bring them into contact with peers and the public across Oklahoma and the nation. Relevant to GOAL III, subsection 6: Expand the number of Educational, Cultural, and Social Opportunities for the region. As an outgrowth of Program Goals II, III, and IV, which History 2133 and 4793 serve as the primary supports for, History Program faculty undertake a range of campus-wide initiatives outside of the classroom from teaching institutes to public discussion forums, and student club activities. As the History Program faculty seeks to retain the traditional purpose of a History Program--to teach cultural literacy and cultivate intellectual curiosity, a number of these initiatives are open to non-majors Relevant to GOAL IV, subsection 4: Increase educational partnerships with common education, career technology centers, community colleges, and other Oklahoma universities. The History Program faculty regularly collaborate with colleagues across the state, the nation, and in international contexts to carry out research, public outreach, and teaching missions, which either build directly on current program capacities in order to serve our majors and CU students more effectively or assist other programs in academia and beyond. As is made clear later on in this section, additional program capacity is always added with the History Program goals and objectives in mind. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 201011 Alignment of Goals and Student-Learning Outcomes IV

12. Measures of Student-Learning Outcomes III. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 201012

13. Direct Measures of Student Learning – Program Goal 1: Local Field Test in History Developed by Program Faculty (replaces the discontinued MFT in History of the ETS) – Program Goals 3-4: Student Portfolio Indirect Measures of Student Learning – Program Goals 1-4: Anonymous Senior Seminar Survey Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Measures of Student-Learning Outcomes Fall 201013

14. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Methodologies for Program Improvement Leading to Improvements in Student Deficits – Given the Higher Learning Commission’s desire for corrective measures in order to improve student deficiencies before graduation, the History Program has created systematic procedures for improving teaching across all classes by revising standards for History Program courses in response to data obtained from an annual review of student progress in History 2133 (the Sophomore Seminar) and History 4793 (the Senior Seminar). This review occurs in accordance with the following procedures: in Spring Term of each AY History Program Assessment Committee evaluates the PQIR results from the last evaluative cycle, instituting changes as needed. This ensures that, if student performance reveals weaknesses early in the program, courses can be changed to remedy these learning deficits. advanced-level electives are then shaped by findings in the Sophomore Seminar to ensure that skills deficits are consistently addressed before graduation. the Senior Seminar Survey provides additional student feedback that the History Program acts on as needed. Faculty are committed to advising students to take Sophomore Seminar in their sophomore year or the first year for transfers thereby addressing any weaknesses before they continue on to upper level offerings and Senior Seminar. Measures of Student-Learning Outcomes Fall 201014

15. Program actions since last assessment presentation 15 IV. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010

16. Program Actions Since Last Assessment Presentation Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Student-Learning Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History – Action taken: – History faculty initiated rigorous reviews of course offerings and major requirements to ensure the on-going upward performance trend of program. 16

17. Program Actions Since Last Assessment Presentation Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Student-Learning Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. – Action taken: – Took further steps toward ensuring that the skills measured by assignment in the sophomore and senior seminars are consistently taught in other courses 17

18. Program Actions Since Last Assessment Presentation Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Student-Learning Outcome 4: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession. – Action taken: – Took further steps toward ensuring that the skills measured by assignment in the sophomore and senior seminars are consistently taught in other courses 18

19. V. Priority Student-Learning Outcomes, Assessment Data, and Action Plans Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 201019

20. Priority Student-Learning Outcome 1 Measurement Plan PROGRAM GOAL: Mastery of Historical Knowledge Student-Learning Outcome 1 CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT OF Student-Learning Outcome Measurements Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements Schedule for measurements Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History Lower Division and Upper Division History Courses local objective testing instrument (direct measurement). Content Validity as Established through Face Validity by having faculty at CU, SNU, and NWOSU examine the test. In processAnnually, Spring Semester 20 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010

21. 21 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History Description and Rationale of Assessment Measurement: – Local Objective Testing Instrument: In the past all History Majors took the Major Field Test in History of the Educational Testing Service as part of the Senior Seminar. That test was discontinued by the ETS and we have replaced it with a local instrument. For purposes of vetting this test, this year we maintained the standard for performance used last year. As noted in our Program Goals and Objectives, students are supposed to score within 5 percentile points of the national mean to achieve a satisfactory performance. – Rationale: an objective testing instrument provides an excellent way to measure the topical coverage of our curriculum which allows the History Program to ensure a proper curricular balance.

22. Sample Size, N=10 Student Meetings Expectations in U.S. History Students Below Expectations in U.S. History Student Meetings Expectations in European and World History Students Below Expectations in European and World History 20109173 Fall 2010 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 22 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History Breakdown of Individual Results* from Local Objective Testing Instrument: 2010 * For U.S. History 7 out of 10 students scored roughly between 20 and 25 and for European and World History 7 out of 10 students scored between 25 and 35 with no dramatic outliers for either portion of the test.

23. 23 2010 Local Instrument Aggregate Results Compared with Available National Norms From the Last MFT Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 2010 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History Adapted Tripartite Scores U.S.European and World Cameron Mean % Correct 2010 6552 Cameron Mean % Correct 2009 56.6749.33 National Mean % Correct 2009 5149 Cumulative Score Cumulative Cameron Mean % Correct 2010 57.2% Cameron Mean % Correct 2009 n/a National Mean % Correct 2009 n/a

24. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 201024 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History Local Objective Testing Instrument: Retrospective Data None available at this time.

25. 25Fall 2010 1.Historic data demonstrates broad improvement in student learning. – A) Due to the unavailability of the History MFT, the History faculty created a local test. Faculty created questions from their specific areas of expertise: U.S. History to 1865 (twenty questions), U.S. History since 1865 (twenty questions), Western Civilization I (fifteen questions), Western Civilization II (fifteen questions), Early World (fifteen questions), and Modern World (fifteen questions). – B) The students’ performances on the local test is higher for both the U.S. and the European/World than the national norm for the 2009 MFT. The Cameron U.S. mean was 65% compared to 51% nationally, admittedly high. The Cameron European/World mean was 52% compared to 49% nationally, within five points (higher or lower) of the national mean, which we set as a goal for our past performances. Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History

26. – C) While we would concede that comparing the local test with the previous years’ MFT is obviously not a perfect solution for the long term, it was nevertheless judged to be the best way to establish a basic sense of reliability for this initial iteration of the local instrument. Faculty were therefore pleased with student performance, feeling that students performed well in all subject areas faculty believed important for our majors, but are aware that the measurement of that performance can only be seen as provisional. – D) We will continue to endeavor to create an appropriate test by having it vetted by colleagues who teach our subject areas at other universities, by reviewing the test ourselves for any improvements that can be made, and by further analyzing the data for any areas that may indicate strengths and weaknesses in student learning. Fall 2010 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 26 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History

27. Student-Learning Outcome Assessment Documentation and Program Modifications TimelinesResources Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory* ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: 1) U.S. History, 2) European History, 3) World History. Submission of new course offerings to the curriculum committee Refinement of the locally developed testing instrument. Implementation during the 2010-2011 academic year. Current faculty Fall 2010 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 27 Action plan for Priority Student-Learning Outcome 1 Priority Outcome 1: Graduates will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to recall, apply, and appraise the explanatory value of factual knowledge related to: U.S. History, European History, and World History

28. Priority Student-Learning Outcome 2 Measurement Plan PROGRAM GOAL: Mastery of Expository Argumentation Student-Learning Outcome 3 CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT OF Student-Learning Outcome Measurements Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements Schedule for measurements Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. Core Courses: HIST 2133, 4793 Upper Division Courses Locally developed student portfolio with longitudinal data collected from History 2133 (Sophomore Seminar) and History 4793 (Senior Seminar) in the form of the research paper that each student writes for these two core courses (direct measurement). Face Validity established by all History Program faculty. The History Program employs the philosophy of inter-rater reliability by 1) having multiple program faculty members read each portfolio 2) having all evaluators use a common, outcomes- based assessment rubric Annually, Fall and Spring Semester Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 Fall 201028

29. Description and Rationale of Assessment Measurement: – Description: Each History Major must take History 2133 and History 4793 to complete the requirements of the History Major. All students produce a set number of written pieces of work to demonstrate their mastery of the core skills that a History Major should have on graduation that collectively form a student portfolio: a document analysis piece, a research paper, and a historiographic essay. For this student-learning objective, program faculty assessed student performance on the research paper. – Rationale: assessing student performance on a research paper is the only way to verify that students have mastered the skills of expository writing, which combines argumentation with the use of evidence that students have analyzed. On the basis of student performance here, program faculty implement changes to History Program offerings to improve student performance. 29Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010Fall 2010 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

30. Breakdown of Individual Results – Owing to the focus of the History Program on randomizing its data samples for this measurement it is not possible to offer comments on the individual results of our majors. Fall 2010 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 30 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

31. 2009 Sample Size, N=5Program Goal III: Expository Argumentation (Research Paper)* History 21332.3 History 47932.61 Fall 2010Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201031 2010 Sample Size, N=10Program Goal III: Expository Argumentation (Research Paper)* History 21332.4 History 47932.37 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. Aggregate Data By Year *Program faculty examined the performance of students in the sample in History 2133 and History 4793 on the research paper that all majors are expected to write in each of these seminars. Three program faculty evaluated each of the research papers that each student in the assessment sample wrote for History 2133 and 4793 respectively based on the next slide.

32. Assessment Scale*: 3 = Exceeds Expectations: crafts & maintains a coherent argument using primary & secondary sources 2 = Meets Expectations: crafts, but does not consistently maintain a coherent argument using primary & secondary sources 1 = Does Not Meet Expectations: crafts an argument that is unclear or imprecise & maintains this argument using primary & secondary sources only inconsistently * The performance level descriptions associated with the above scale promote: – reliability (by establishing a consistent standard for evaluation) – application of similar evaluative standards across History 2133 and History 4793 – provide base definitions for standards applied within other History Program courses Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201032Fall 2010 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

33. This is the second year in which we have used the current portfolio measurement scale. We expect to be able to provide a proper trend analysis next year. For this year an effort will be made to maximize the value of the data that we do have. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201033Fall 2010 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

34. Fall 2010Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201034 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. Longitudinal Results Comparing History 2133 and 4793

35. Fall 2010Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201035 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

36. 36Fall 2010 1.Historic data demonstrates broad improvement in student learning. – A) Portfolio analysis of the research papers from Sophomore and Senior level seminars indicate a slight statistical decline of less than.05% in quality of the mastery of expository argumentation. – B) Students continue to achieve meets expectations on the scoring rubric, indicating that while the 2010 HIST 4793 students were outperformed by those in 2009 HIST 4793, both groups performed well, and within.3% of each other. – C) We are aware that one barrier to improved statistics from HIST 2133 to HIST 4793 is the space between which students take the classes. Due to the larger number of transfer students who graduate from our program, it is possible that students may not have many opportunities to take upper division offerings and practice the skill of expository argumentation between taking HIST 2133 and HIST 4793. – D) We will continue to revise our program offerings to ensure students have as many opportunities to practice this skill as possible in our upper division courses. Given the small number of majors, the larger number of transfer students who graduate from our program with significant hours compared at other universities, and our limited upper division offerings we feel our program is performing well. However, there is need for continued program course review, and review of our curriculum to ensure that we consistently teach the skills we measure in student portfolios. Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

37. Student-Learning Outcome Assessment Documentation and Program Modifications TimelinesResources Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources. Two of the ten students in this evaluation were transfers who took both of these seminar courses within the same academic year, thus making it more challenging to gauge the impact of our teaching in the performance improvement of such students from HIST 2133 to HIST 4793. The score of one student remained flat across the seminars, while that of the other declined slightly. This suggests that the department will have to closely monitor their performance trends in future years in relation to those majors who take these courses further apart. May 15, 2011Current faculty Fall 2010 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 37 Action plan for Priority Student-Learning Outcome 2 Priority Outcome 2: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend a sustained and coherent argument based on both primary and secondary sources.

38. Priority Student-Learning Outcome 3 Measurement Plan PROGRAM GOAL: Mastery of Synthetic Writing Student-Learning Outcome 4 CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT OF Student-Learning Outcome Measurements Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements Schedule for measurements Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession. Core Courses: HIST 2133, 4793 Upper Division Courses Locally developed student portfolio with longitudinal data collected from History 2133 (Sophomore Seminar) and History 4793 (Senior Seminar) in the form of the research paper that each student writes for these two core courses (direct measure). Face Validity established by all History Program faculty. The History Program employs the philosophy of inter-rater reliability by 1) having multiple program faculty members read each portfolio 2) having all evaluators use a common, outcomes- based assessment rubric. Annually, Fall and Spring Semester Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 38Fall 2010

39. Display of Assessment Data Description and Rationale of Assessment Measurement: – Description: Each History Major must take History 2133 and History 4793 to complete the requirements of the History Major. All students produce a set number of written pieces of work to demonstrate their mastery of the core skills that a History Major should have on graduation that collectively form a student portfolio: a document analysis piece, a research paper, and a historiographic essay. For this student-learning outcome, program faculty assessed student performance on the historiographic essay. – Rationale: assessing student performance on a historiographic essay is the only way to verify that students have mastered the skills of synthetic writing, which stresses the ability to evaluate and combine the perspectives and ideas of different historians in essay form. 39Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010Fall 2010 Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

40. Breakdown of Individual Results – Owing to the focus of the History Program on randomizing its data samples for this measurement, it is not possible to offer comments on the individual results of our majors. Fall 2010 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 40 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

41. Aggregate Data By Year *Program faculty examined the performance of students in the sample in History 2133 and History 4793 on the research paper that all majors are expected to write in each of these seminars. Three program faculty evaluated each of the historiographic essays that each student in the assessment sample wrote for History 2133 and 4793 respectively based on the scale on the next slide. 2009 Sample Size, N=5Program Goal IV: Synthetic Writing (Historiographical Essay)* History 21331.92 History 47932.26 2010 Sample Size, N=10Program Goal IV: Synthetic Writing (Historiographical Essay)* History 21331.89 History 47932.2 41Fall 2010 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

42. Assessment Scale: 3 = Exceeds Expectations: identifies and evaluates the full range of conflicting interpretations & views of past events and issues and demonstrates an understanding of their relative merit. 2 = Meets Expectations: identifies & evaluates many of the conflicting interpretations & views of past events & issues and demonstrates some understanding of their relative merit 1 = Does Not Meet Expectations: identifies & evaluates at most a few of conflicting interpretations & views of past events & issues and demonstrates little or no understanding of their relative merit. * The performance level descriptions associated with the above scale promote: – reliability (by establishing a consistent standard for evaluation) – application of similar evaluative standards across History 2133 and History 4793 – provide base definitions for standards applied within other History Program courses Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201042Fall 2010 Display of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

43. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201043Fall 2010 This is the second year in which we have used the current portfolio measurement scale. We expect to be able to provide a proper trend analysis next year. For this year an effort will be made to maximize the value of the data that we do have. Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

44. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201044Fall 2010 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession. Longitudinal Results Comparing History 2133 and 4793

45. Fall 2010Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-201045 Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

46. 46Fall 2010 1.Historic data demonstrates broad improvement in student learning. – A) Portfolio analysis of the historiographical essays from Sophomore and Senior level seminars indicate a statistical improvement in quality of the mastery of synthetic writing. – B) Student performance for 2009 HIST 2133 and 2010 HIST 2133 is within.1%, as is student performance for 2009 HIST 4793 and 2010 HIST 4793. – C) Students continue to meet expectations in HIST 4793. This statistical data indicates that as the skill of synthetic writing is the most difficult and least natural for students entering our program, they are improving the more opportunities they have to practice the skill. – D) We will continue to revise our program offerings to ensure students have as many opportunities to practice this skill as possible in our upper division courses. Given the small number of majors, the larger number of transfer students who graduate from our program with significant hours compared at other universities, and our limited upper division offerings we feel our program is performing well. However, there is need for continued program course review, and review of our curriculum to ensure that we consistently teach the skills we measure in student portfolios. Analysis of Assessment Data Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

47. Student-Learning Outcome Assessment Documentation and Program Modifications TimelinesResources Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession. Portfolio analysis of the synthetic writing essays from Sophomore and Senior Seminar level courses indicate that students are at or above the meeting-expectations level. To further improve the quality of the mastery of synthetic writing assignments should be continued in both Sophomore and Senior Seminars and increased in upper level courses. The action plan should be implemented by the 2011-2012 academic years. Current academic staff and fiscal resources. Fall 201047 Action plan for Priority Student-Learning Outcome 3 Priority Outcome 3: Graduates will demonstrate the ability to identify, organize, and assess conflicting interpretations and views of past events and issues within the historical profession.

48. Published information on graduates 1. Eleven students completed the Senior Seminar in History in Spring 2010. Ten students completed the Senior Seminar exit survey. 2. Seven indicated they would go to graduate school at some point. One said he would pursue another BA degree. Of those planning on graduate study four chose the area of history, two picked law school, and one selected business school. Two indicated they had no plans for further higher education. One student has been admitted to the MA program in history at Midwestern State University in the fall of 2010. 3. All ten respondents in 2010 indicated on their exit surveys that they would recommend our program to other students, and that they felt well prepared for professional careers. Six students responded that they were very satisfied with the history major at Cameron University 4. These statistics compared favorably with those of last year, although more graduates are planning further education as opposed to immediate entry into the job market. 48Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010Fall 2010

49. 49 Published Information on Graduates Survey Categories 2009 (N=5)2010 (N=10) Plans After Graduation Graduate Study in History4 Law School2 MBA Program1 Graduate Program Unspecified 1 Additional Baccalaureate Degree1 No Immediate Plans2 Military1 Post-Secondary Education2 Private Sector Job1 Ratings of the History Program Very Satisfied with History Program n/a6 Would Recommend the History Program to Others 510 Judged that the History Program had Prepared them for a Professional Career 510 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010