Philosophy Department Annual Assessment Report to the College 2016-2017

Abstract

2016-17 Assessment Report, Department of Philosophy Robert Gressis

For the 2016-17 academic year, I was tasked to assess philosophy courses that fell under the “Critical Thinking” subsection of the “Basic Skills” section of GE courses. These courses included: • Philosophy 100: General Logic • Philosophy 200: Critical Reasoning • Philosophy 210: Reasoning in the Sciences • Philosophy 225: Evolutionary Reasoning • Philosophy 230: Introduction to Formal Logic.

My remit included five components: (1) devise a rubric that I could use to assess the critical thinking abilities of students in those courses; (2) recruit philosophy professors willing to allow me and others in the department to assess their students; (3) have each of those professors give me a “signature assignment” that I could assess using the rubric; and (4) set up a norming session where I and other philosophy professors could assess those signature assignments together; and (5) write up my results.

(1), AKA Devising a Rubric: I did not complete (1), but, in collaboration with the inestimable Bonnie Paller, I figured out what my rubric would be like. It would assess Student Learning Outcomes 1 and 4 under the “Critical Thinking” subsection of the “General Education Student Learning Outcomes” section of the CSUN University Catalog (see catalog.csun.edu/general-education/student-learning-outcomes/). Those outcomes are: “Students will … 1. Explain and apply the basic concepts essential to a critical examination and evaluation of argumentative discourse. … 4. Evaluate the logic and validity of arguments, and the relevance of data and information.” The rubric I envisioned would determine whether students showed evidence both that they understood what an argument was (namely, as a set of statements, some of which (the premises) support another (the conclusion) and that they had the ability to distinguish between deductively valid and invalid arguments. This meant that every signature assignment, in each of the courses, would have to have an assignment wherein students had to distinguish arguments from non-arguments (this would show whether they understood the concept of an argument), and in which they had to say whether an argument was deductively valid or not (this would show whether they had the ability to distinguish deductively valid from deductively invalid arguments).

(2), AKA Recruiting Philosophy Professors: I completed (2); the professors I enlisted were: Jake Hale (Philosophy 100), Daniel Kwon (Philosophy 200), Mitch Herschbach (Philosophy 225), and Erick Jimenez (Philosophy 230). No professor was teaching Philosophy 210 in the Spring 2017 semester, so there was no one I could contact for assessment.

(3), AKA Gather Signature Assignments: I also completed most of (3). Professors Hale, Herschbach, and Jimenez all gave me a signature assignment that met the criteria I specified in (1). Professor Kwon’s class was online, so I would have had to consult with IT to get his signature assignment. I did not do this.

(4), AKA Assess the Assignments: I did not complete (4). There were two main reasons I failed to complete (4): first, lack of foresight; and second, lack of imagination. • Lack of foresight: Owing to some personal issues, I just did not have time during the Spring 2017 semester to set up an assessment session for the signature assignments. “No problem”, I thought. “I’ll just assess the assignments over the summer.” However, I noticed that many people who would have helped to evaluate the assignments weren’t around over the summer, so I decided that I should assess the assignments in the beginning of the Fall 2017 semester. Unfortunately, though people were around in the Fall 2017 semester, they turned out not to have any time to meet. I should have foreseen this. • Lack of imagination: despite the paucity of volunteers for a norming session during the beginning of the Fall 2017 semester, I did get two: Kristina Meshelski and Sarah Hanson. However, Professor Meshelski could only meet on Monday after 4 pm, and Professor Hanson could only meet on Wednesday after 4 pm. If I had been smarter, I would have simply given them copies of the student assignments, told them to assess them on their own time, and then compared their assessments with mine, so I would have some data to present. But I didn’t think of that until after the assessment report was due.

(5), AKA Write up the Results: In the end, no assessment happened. I feel really bad about that, not that that makes it happen. I at least have valuable experience about how to go about assessment in the future, should I continue to take on this administrative role for the department.