The Sociology program assessment for 1996-1997 identified several elements in need of attention in our goals, assessment and feedback efforts.

In particular:

1. The need to develop goals for, and assess our general education mission. 2. The need to develop better strategies for gathering information from our Master of Arts students post degree.

We concluded our report last year with four specific recommendations and problems based on our experience with the assessment process:

1. Recommendation: Encourage faculty to include oral communication skills in their courses.

Action Taken: Based on the exit interview data, it appears this has been accomplished. A number of students indicated that oral presentations and other exercises had been introduced into certain courses which enhanced their overall classroom experience.

2. Recommendation: Improve computer skills for students.

Action Taken: A university wide effort to make more computers and assistance available to students has been effective in dealing with this issue.

3. Recommendation: Improve the advising process for students to ease the transition to the workforce.

Action Taken: Career opportunity pamphlets and information from the professional organization, The American Sociological Association, have been ordered that will be made available to all majors. In addition, to encourage students to take advantage of Career Services, we are in the process of developing a number of colloquia for sociology/ criminology students focusing on concerns such as preparing for graduate school and the workforce.

4. Recommendation: Enhance student learning in the cognitive objectives related to overall knowledge and use of sociology as a field of study.

Action Taken: This is an ongoing concern for the department and we are currently redesigning the core curriculum with this issue in mind.

Goals and Objectives of the Baccalaureate Program

During the 1997-1998 academic year we reviewed and evaluated the sociology program goals and acknowledge that our goals are the same as those defined in the 1996-1997 assessment report. The general goals are as follows:

1. Students will learn about the emergence of social behavior and how it becomes organized, institutionalized and changed. A significant facet of this learning is the application of sociological knowledge in public and private situations.

2. Student will understand the significance of the "sociological imagination" as well as gain the ability to apply concepts and principles of sociological analysis.

All sociology students are expected to learn problem solving and critical thinking skills, how to clearly articulate their ideas both verbally and in writing, and how to gather, analyze and draw conclusions from data.

Cognitive learning objectives differ for the two major programs in sociology. Students in the general sociology program are expected to learn (1) how social situations cause social behavior and how people construct social meaning; (2) how patterns of social life in institutions such as the family and economy affect behavior; (3) the role of social inequality in the allocation of valued resources in society, how inequality is transmitted from one generation to the next, and the role of race, class and gender in social inequality.

Students in the criminology program are expected to learn (1) the social causes of crime and deviance; (2) the role of social inequality in the generation of crime and deviant behavior; (3) methods and effects of various societal interventions employed to sanction criminal activity.

Table 1 lists the assessment tools, goals and data employed in this report.

Table 1. Sources of Data

Major Field Assessment Test Data for Baccalaureate Program

The data reported are from the 1998 administrations of the Major Field Assessment Test (MFAT). Table 2 contains the mean scores for the sociology program and the national percentile rank for the overall test and the sub scores for core sociology and critical thinking.

Table 2. Overall Mean Scores for 1998 Administrations of MFAT in Sociology

The 1998 group of respondents is from a required senior level class (N=24) in which the test was presented as a class exercise. On the overall score, individual students scored from the thirteenth percentile to the ninety-sixth percentile. This is slightly higher than individual scores in 1997 which ranged from the seventh to the ninety-first percentile.

In addition to the global assessment of student outcome, the MFAT provides scores for eight subareas in sociology. These measures allow us to measure how well our students have learned material presented in major subdivisions in sociology and provide evidence relating to our learning goals as stated earlier. Table 3 contains data for the sub field indicators.

Table 3. Percentile Scores for Indicators in Sub Fields of Sociology

When compared with 1997, overall scores for 1998 in the sub fields of general theory and social psychology increased and those within deviance/social problems remained stable indicating that students were very proficient in these areas. However, the scores in other sub fields such as gender, social institutions and multicultural are volatile. This inconsistency can be partially explained by the fact that many students may not have had instruction in these sub field areas due to individual course selections. Our students also have not done well in the study of demography and rural/urban life. In 1997 and 1998 we offered little instruction in these areas which accounts for the overall low performance scores. We believe that our recent departmental hire in this sub field should increase student proficiency in this area in the future. The highly unstable score in methods/statistics is puzzling to us.

Baccalaureate Student Advising

To assess advising, students responded to a short questionnaire about their experience with their academic advisor. The format was similar to the one employed in teaching evaluations by the College of Arts and Sciences with 14 questions asked about elements of the student/advisor relationship. Eighty-one of approximately 308 majors completed the questionnaire at the end of their Winter 1998 advising meeting. Mean scores indicate that students view their advising experience very positively. Students would recommend their advisor to a friend (mean of 4.6 out of 5.0), rate specific advice highly (4.7 out of 5.0), and rate their overall advising experience very highly (4.6 out of 5.0). There are differences between the questionnaire data and information collected in exit letters. A substantial number of students who completed the exit letter have had an unpleasant experience with an advisor. We think the difference is explainable in part by the fact that many who have such experiences change advisors and are then very satisfied with their experience.

Student assessments of faculty advising in the exit interview reflected an unevenness of experience. About half wrote that the quality of advising was excellent while others reported that their advisor was unhelpful, dismissive, and rushed them out the door. Many students voiced an interest in receiving more career guidance.

Criminology majors indicated a somewhat more positive experience regarding career preparation than did sociology. However, both sociology and criminology majors expressed a desire for more career guidance and assistance regarding graduate and professional school opportunities. We are addressing some of these concerns by making available career opportunity material published by the American Sociological Association and developing information seminars.

Quality of Baccalaureate Education

The exit questionnaire was the basis of this evaluation. This questionnaire was sent to forty randomly selected seniors in sociology and criminology. The questionnaire asked students to comment on the quality of the curriculum as manifested in courses and breadth of coverage, faculty in terms of quality and general treatment, and preparation for future career or educational plans. Nineteen of the forty students returned the questionnaire. Data from questionnaires helped us identify areas of concern.

Students were generally positive regarding the quality of the undergraduate program. Many students cited the strength and diversity of the curriculum, the quality of the instruction and specific experiences in the classroom as positives for the program. Some students expressed concern over catalog listings not being offered and more course options being available. Specific concerns are being addressed in our current curriculum revision and the updating of catalog offerings.

Student comments regarding their experiences with the faculty were overwhelmingly positive. Overall, majors in both criminology and sociology felt that faculty went out of their way to do a good job with teaching and responding to student needs. A small number of students indicated that some faculty had little interest and motivation in teaching and communicating with students.

Although we do not have data available for the planned return rates of general sociology majors, the data from institutional research show that students in sociology/criminology persist from freshman to sophomore year at a rate that was equal to that of last year. For both the 1995-1996 and the 1996-1997 school year, eighty-six percent of first year sociology/criminology students returned to Ohio University. This is encouraging because it suggests that our program is stable and meeting the needs of the majority of the majors. This compares quite favorably with the University retention rate of eighty-three percent and the College of Arts and Sciences rate of eighty-one percent.

Data from the Career and Further Education study for 1997 show that 1996 graduates are generally satisfied with their experiences in the sociology/criminology program. Eighty-eight percent reported some level of satisfaction with the program. Ninety-six percent felt the university had prepared them well for their career goals and one-hundred percent believed the university had prepared them well for future academic work.

Information obtained from students in the general sociology program differs greatly from that for sociology/criminology students. Fifty percent reported some level of satisfaction with the program. Seventy-five percent believed the university had prepared them well for their career goals and one-hundred percent believed the university had prepared them well for additional academic work.

Although we are concerned about the level of dissatisfaction some students in the general sociology program have reported, we believe that this may be attributed in part to an uncertain job market. Based on their vocational orientation students in the sociology/criminology program may believe they are entering a fairly stable job market. Those students in the general sociology program, however, may feel less secure about their future employment opportunities. We believe that some of the dissatisfaction voiced by general sociology students will be alleviated with the addition of education to workforce assistance in the form of departmental seminars and distribution of career opportunity pamphlets.

Conclusions for Baccalaureate Program

Our assessment of the sociology program for 1997-1998 leads us to the following conclusions about our baccalaureate program: