1. 2012-2013 Assessment Report School of TAHSS Department: History Chair: Dr. Owen Ireland Assessment Coordinator: Date of Presentation: 10/1/2013

2. What was assessed? Student learning outcomes list: Upon graduation, students with an undergraduate degree in History will be able to… 1) Articulate a thesis (a response to a historical problem). 2) Advance in logical sequence principal arguments in defense of a historical thesis. 3) Provide relevant evidence drawn from the evaluation of primary and/or secondary sources that supports the primary arguments in defense of a historical thesis. 4) Evaluate the significance of a historical thesis by relating it to a broader field of historical knowledge. 5) Express themselves clearly in writing that forwards a historical analysis. 6) Use disciplinary standards (Chicago Style) of documentation when referencing historical sources.*

3. How was the assessment accomplished? Nine courses were designated in the assessment of SLO#6 – HST 390 Research Methods: four sections; HST 404.01 Cold War USSR, HST 404.02 Early Modern Monarchy, HST 408 Landmark Decisions, HST 416 Colonial North America, HST 420 American Century Pearl Harbor, HST 427 American Material Culture, HST 455 The Black Death and HST487 Asian Survey. In all sections, the specific assignment or task evaluated was the following: Final Paper as graded by rubric.

4. HST 390: Total number of students assessed in the course 4 – all sections (n): 38 Percent exceeding: 34 Percent meeting: 55 Percent approaching: 10 Percent not meeting: 0 Restate your benchmark: At least 70 % Meet Expectation 89 % Did you meet your benchmark? Yes. Actual assessment data

5. HST: 404.01, 404.02, 408, 416, 420, 427, 455 and 487 Total number of students assessed in the course 8 – all sections (n): 78 Percent exceeding:30 Percent meeting:50 Percent approaching:15 Percent not meeting:5 Restate your benchmark: At least 90% Meet Expectation: 80% Did you meet your benchmark? No Actual assessment data

6. Assessment results: What have the data told us? About 90% of the students in HST 390 met or exceeded expectations. Thus, these students performed well above our current benchmark of 70% meeting or exceeding expectations. An additional 10 % approached expectations, and none failed. These results suggest no need for immediate action. We do not at this time see the need to ask for additional resources. HST 404 (2 sections), 408, 416, 429, 427, 455, 487. About 80% of the students in these history courses met or exceeded expectations. Thus, we missed our benchmark of 90%. Fifteen % of these students “approached expectations” and 5% failed. These results suggest the need for action. A total of 20% failing to meet expectations in our most advanced courses should give us pause, and the failure of 5% to demonstrate even the most elementary understanding of how to document their research is disturbing.

7. One possible explanation for this low level of performance on our most basic SLOs is that a proportion of the students in the Research Intensive 400s may not have successfully completed HST 390. Closer examination of the wording of the current prerequisite for our 400s Research Intensive courses indicates that it allows students who are currently taking HST 390 to enter these Research Intensive courses, and, of greater significance, its ambiguous wording also allows students who have failed HST 390 (i.e. earned a C-or less) to sign up for Research Intensive courses. We have revised the wording to insure that only students who have successfully completed HST 390 with a C or better (or who have the permission of the instructor) can sign up for our Research Intensive 400 level courses. The more diverse nature of the students taking our NON-Research intensive 400s may also contribute to the problem. Because assessment intends to assess the accomplishments of our majors, we should probably assess only those courses intended principally for majors. If that be the case, then in the future, we should limit the collection of assessment data to our Research Intensive 400s. Finally, it is possible that advanced history majors who have successfully completed HST 390 also did poorly on SLO 6. Anecdotal evidence suggests this but the data we now have do not allow us to make that distinction. But if some of our advanced majors do perform poorly on SLO 6, then we will need to address that issue. Proposed action: limit our measurement of SLO 6 History Majors, and possibly History Minors, in our Research Intensive courses. That, combined with the rewording of the prerequisite for entrance into these Research Intensive courses should provide us with reliable data on which to plan future action. Assessment results: What have the data told us?

8. Data-driven decisions: How the department has or plans to “close the loop” based on these results. What we need is better data.

9. What resources were used or have been requested to close the loop? We do not at this time feel the need for additional resources.