2012-2013 Assessment Report School of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences Department: Philosophy

1. 2012-2013 Assessment ReportSchool of Arts, Humanities, and Social SciencesDepartment:Philosophy Chair: Georges Dicker Assessment Coordinator: Georges Dicker Date of Presentation: October 1, 2013

2. What was assessed? Student learning outcomes list: • SLO #1: Students will be able to identify premises, conclusions, and unstated assumptions; analyze the structure of complex arguments, avoid logical fallacies; recognize and construct deductively valid arguments. • SLO #2: Students will be able explain the main philosophical theories and methods of the Ancient and of the Modern philosophers. • SLO #3: Students will be able to compare and contrast ethical theories such as psychological egoism, ethical egoism, ethical relativism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics.*

3. Student learning outcomes list: • SLO #4: Students will be able to analyze at least three of the following issues in metaphysics: the existence and nature of God, change and permanence, the nature of time, the status of universals, idealism and realism, the mind-body problem, the problem of personal identity, the problem of freedom and determinism, necessity and possibility. • SLO # 5: Students will be able to explicate at least three of the following problems in the theory of knowledge: perception and the external world, defining propositional knowledge, defining a priori knowledge, the structure of epistemic justification, the problem of induction, and the problem of other minds.

4. Student learning outcomes list: • SLO #6: Students will be able to summarize major issues in at least two of the following sub-fields of philosophy: philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, medical ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of love, feminist philosophy, business ethics, philosophy of mind. • SLO #7: Students will be able to write a well informed, well reasoned, clear, well organized, and properly documented philosophical essay.

5. How was the assessment accomplished? The assessment was carried out in two courses PHL 101: Introduction to Ethics and PHL 345: Ethical Theory. • In PHL 101, the student work assessed was (1) an essay exam that required evaluating practical ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty in light of major ethical theories such as ethical egoism, ethical relativism, subjectivism, and deontology, and (2) an essay exam that required comparing and contrasting major ethical theories such as deontology, utilitarianism, and feminist ethics. For these, the benchmark or criterion of success was, “at least 20% of the students will earn a grade of B+ or better on this exam; at least 60% will earn C+ or better.” The students who earned an A or A- on an assessed exam were regarded as having exceeded this criterion, those who earned between B+ and C+ as having met it, those who earned between C and C- as having approached it, ant those who earned less than C- as having not met it. These letter grades were assigned on the basis of a rubric for grading essay exams developed by the Department. That rubric describes the qualities of the content, reasoning, and writing mechanics of an A, B, C, D,and E exam. It is available for examination.

6. How was the assessment accomplished? In PHL 345, the student work assessed was: • (1) an essay exam that required comparing and contrasting psychological egoism, ethical egoism, and ethical relativism, and (2) an essay exam that required comparing and contrasting utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. The benchmark, criterion of success, and rubric used for assigning letter grades were the same as those used in PHL 101 (though it is worth mentioning here that the department has also developed a rubric for grading student essays written at home, which rates essays as A, B, C, D, or E essays on the basis of their statement of the problem, thesis, evidence, logic, thought (originality, complexity, depth), writing mechanics, and citation/documentation, and which is also available for examination).

7. Actual assessment data For the first assessed essay exam in PHL 101, the results reported by the instructor were as follows: • Percent exceeding: 36% (36/101) • Percent meeting: 34% (34/101) • Percent approaching: 14% (14/101) • Percent not meeting: 17% (17/101) For the second assessed essay exam in PHL 101, the results reported by the instructor were as follows: • Percent exceeding: 43% (43/101) • Percent meeting: 29% (29/101) • Percent approaching: 10% (10/101) • Percent not meeting: 19% (19/101) Note: there is a 1% error in the total percentages reported here, resulting in a small margin of error in the exceeds/meets/approaches/does not meet breakdown.

8. Actual assessment data For the first assessed essay exam in PHL 345, the results were as follows: • Percent exceeding: 15% (2/13) • Percent meeting: 55% (7/13) • Percent approaching: 15% (2/13 • Percent not meeting: 15% (2/13) For the second assessed essay exam in PHL 345, the results were as follows: • Percent exceeding: 15% (2/13) • Percent meeting: 54% (7/13) • Percent approaching: 08% (1/13) • Percent not meeting: 23% (3/13)

9. Assessment results: What have the data told us? • For the first exam in PHL 101, the data tells us that 36% of the students earned an A or an A-, and that another 34% earned between a B+ and a C+. It follows that at least 20% of them earned a B+ or better, and that 70% earned a C+ or better. Since there is a 1% error in the total percentages reported by the instructor, a small margin of error attaches to this conclusion. Regardless of this margin, however, it also follows that on this exam we met (indeed exceeded), our benchmark or criterion of success, “at least 20% of the students will earn a grade of B+ or better on this exam; at least 60% will earn C+ or better.” • For the second exam in PHL 101, the data tells us that 43% of the students earned an A or A- and that another 29% earned between a B+ and a C+. It follows that at least 20% of them earned a B+ or better, and that 72% earned a C+ or better. Since there is a 1% error in the total percentages reported by the instructor, a small margin of error attaches to this conclusion. Regardless of this margin, however it also follows that on this, exam we met (indeed exceeded), our benchmark or criterion of success, “at least 20% of the students will earn a grade of B+ or better on this exam; at least 60% will earn C+ or better.” • In general, the data shows that on both of the essay exams assessed, the students demonstrated a clear understanding of the major ethical theories covered in class and in the course readings, and a sound ability to apply these theories to the practical ethical issues discussed.

10. Assessment results: What have the data told us? • For the first essay exam in PHL 345, the data tells us that 15% of the students earned an A or an A-, and that another 55 % earned between a B+ and a C+. It follows that 70% earned a C+ or better. It also follows that on this exam we met (indeed exceeded) one part of our benchmark or criterion of success (“at least 60% will earn C+ or better”). In addition, 50% earned B+ or better, so we also met (and exceeded) the other part of our benchmark (“at least 20% of the students will earn a grade of B+ or better).” • For the second essay exam in PHL 345, the data tells us that 15% of the students earned an A or an A-, and that another 54 % earned between a B+ and a C+. It follows that 69% earned a C+ or better. It also follows that on this exam we met (indeed exceeded) one part of our benchmark or criterion of success (“at least 60% will earn C+ or better”), In addition, 43% earned B+ or better, so we also met (and exceeded) the other part of our benchmark (“at least 20% of the students will earn a grade of B+ or better).” • In general, the data shows that on both of the essay exams assessed, the students demonstrated a firm grasp of the theories and views discussed in class.

11. Data-driven decisions: How the department has or plans to “close the loop” based on these results. • For PHL 101, the instructor reported, “in the future, I will continue to use the current pedagogies while adjusting the set of practical ethical issues discussed so as to track contemporary issues.” • For PHL 345, the instructor reported, “Although the class demonstrated a fairly detailed understanding of the theories and views in question, for the future I will delve a little more deeply into those details. In response to those students who did not meet the benchmark, I will, in the future, continue to emphasize that students must read and think about the material prior to coming to class and should visit me, either during my office hours or by appointment, should they have questions about the material or wish to discuss it further. It should be noted that one student went from not meeting the criterion in the first group to meeting the criterion in the second group, although (i) another student went from meeting to approaching the criterion and (ii) a third student went from approaching to not meeting the criterion. The student who improved visited me during my office hours.” • The Department supports these ideas for maintaining and enhancing the level of teaching and learning in our courses.

12. What resources were used or have been requested to close the loop? • The Department did not use or request special resources for assessment activities.