I. Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives of the Anthropology Program are reviewed each year to ensure that we are responding to the needs of students as well as to changes within the discipline of Anthropology. The entire Anthropology Committee met this year to discuss the goals and objectives of our program.

The overarching goal is: Students will learn the similarities and differences in the ways through which human beings as a biological and cultural species organize and conceptualize their lives, preparing students then for life experiences in an increasingly diverse and multicultural environment.

To achieve this goal, we have established five (5) pedagogic objectives:

1. students are expected to acquire problem solving and critical thinking skills;

2. students are expected to learn a breadth of substantive anthropological knowledge in all three sub-fields: sociocultural anthropology, biological anthropology, and archaeology;

3. students are expected to learn both qualitative and quantitative methods of analyzing anthropological material;

4. students are expected to improve their communicative skills through written work and oral presentation;

5. students are expected to acquire practical skills necessary for careers in anthropology.

These programmatic objectives are sought through the following:

1. introductory courses in all three sub-fields;

2. 300-level courses which emphasize breadth in all three sub-fields as well as writing;

3. 400-level courses which emphasize depth in all three sub-fields as well as writing and oral presentation;

4. laboratory and field courses which emphasize pragmatic skills in anthropology;

5. seminars which emphasize depth of knowledge and oral presentation skills; and

6. conscientious advising and considerable personalized attention given to each and every anthropology student.

We are at present a six-person program which offers a B.A. degree. Although this year discussion was held between ourselves, the departmental chair and the dean of the college concerning the possibility of expansion and restructuring, any serious movement towards restructuring was dismissed by the College of Arts and Sciences; thus our program objectives are fashioned within the realistic structure of our current program.

II. Assessment Mechanisms

The evaluation of closeness to meeting the six objectives stated above is determined based on the basis of four (4) measures:

1. Senior Exit Questionnaire, the function of which is to qualitatively measure perceptions of learning experiences, experience with faculty, and the overall quality of the program as assessed by anthropology majors about to graduate;

2. Alumni Questionnaire, the function of which is to qualitatively measure perceptions of learning experiences, experience with faculty, and the overall quality of the program as assessed by alumni who majored in Anthropology;

3. Advising Survey, the function of which is to qualitatively and quantitatively measure student perception about the quality of advise from and availability of faculty members;

4. Teaching Evaluations, the function of which is to qualitatively and quantitatively measure student perception of course quality and provide immediate feedback to faculty.

We would have liked to include the following:

4. Institutional Research Data: Career and Furtyher Education Study, the function of which is to measure preparation for advanced work in the field or entry into the job market;

5. Institutional Research Data: Long Term Educational Outcomes Survey, the function of which is to report on the five year assessment of student satisfaction and the perceptios of education.

However, those data have not yet been reported to Anthropology at the time of the preparation of this document. We will include it in next year's document.

This year, the four mechanisms were operational except for the Alumni Questionnaire which was first used in 1995 and will not be used again until the year 2000.

III. Results of Assessment Mechanisms

1. We received seven (7) responses to the senior exit questionnaire, a return rate of 50%. This relatively high return rate was a function of improving the manner through which we distributed our questionnaires over the previous year, which saw a return rate of 20%.

Although some individual faculty received some very positive comments and two of the seven were generally pleased, five of the seven were disatisfied with the program. These students identified themselves as sociocultural students and the primary complaint was that we had experienced significant instability of faculty over these past four years, resulting in few sociocultural courses offered at unpredictable times.

Response: We now have stabilized the sociocultural faculty and have had several meetings to solidify courses offerings. We also created a survey of sociocultural courses which was administered to upper level students. We are assessing the results of that survey to better create a course curriculum within sociocultural anthropology.

A second statement from our questionnaires was the need for more faculty, as expressed by the students. We submitted a staffing request for a biological anthropologist as a response to student concerns about course diversity, but our request was rejected by the College.

2. Our advising survey indicated that students are extremely satisfied with faculty advising. All faculty received very high ratings (well above 4.5 on a 5.0 scale), indicating that we are meeting the goal of helping students with career and curricular decisions.

Response: We should keep the structure of advising as is, since students are very satisfied with this component of the program.

IV. Recommendations for Improvement in the Assessment Mechanism

After carefully reviewing the results of our Assessment exit questionnaires, the Anthropology Committee decided unanimously to review in the Fall the specific questions asked. Currently, they are general, paralleling the College of Arts and Sciences qualitative questions for course evaluations. We believe we can improve upon this by asking more specific questions targetting the quality of courses and the program.

In addition, we decided that we should be getting a higher return, although 50% is quite good. The problem is that a 50% response is still only a sample of seven (7), so small that one response can radically effect the outcome. We will now administer our exit questionnaires in class, thus ensuring virtually a 100% response.

V. Conclusions

Overall, our assessment mechanisms provide valuable input as to the quality of our program and the satisfaction of our students. We continue to improve that mechanism.

Students are somewhat satisfied with their education, but highlight several areas of concern: (1) number of faculty in general, (2) consistency of course offerings, especially in socioculturaal anthropology, and (3) diversity of course offerings, particularly but not exclusively in biological anthropology. Clearly increasing the number of faculty is the greatest concern expressed by students. We are aware of these concerns and are in the process of addressing those which are within our power to correct.

Back to Assessments