Requirements for Graduation           Plan of Study Checklist           Graduating with Honors           Frequently Asked Questions           Assessment Multi-Year Plan           Assessment Findings & Feedback

Assessment Findings and Feedback process

Review of the goal-specific items from the departmental SCE report in comparison to the overall Trinity College reports from the last 4 years reveals that LIN-designator courses are evaluated by students to be very rewarding (4.35 of 5 rating for quality of instruction) and to be intellectually stimulating (4.02 of 5). The departmental results are higher than the overall Trinity College averages in terms of quality of instruction and intellectual stimulation, and the majority of areas evaluated (17 of 20).

The review of goal-specific items from the CES for the last 4 years reveals a high level of student satisfaction and success in pursuing their educational goals. In particular, COHFE data shows that Duke Linguistics majors gave significantly higher ratings in the areas of use of quantitative tools, scientific process and experimentation, satisfaction with the major, quality of instruction, intellectual excitement, gaining in-depth knowledge of the field, and a dozen other categories (in comparison with other Duke divisions and peer departments and divisions). The perceived progress on writing skills as shown by student ratings, while consistently high, has not been at the overall level of the college until the past two terms. Indicators from SCE point to research-coded courses as major contributors to the perceived increase in progress.

Based on data gathered from the two survey sources detailed above as demonstrated in the SCE and CES reports, specifically concerning quality of instruction and intellectual stimulation, the Linguistics program has been consistently successful within the Duke community in providing quality instruction to its students. We will continue to systematically consider the data collected to date through CES and SCE during the upcoming first year of the new assessment, examine individual categories of particular
relevance to the program, and develop a course of action to further improve the impact of the academic major in Linguistics.

The students are highly engaged in the discipline and this is shown by the large percentage of first majors who choose to write an honors thesis and successfully defend it. We target an increase of 10% in honors thesis participation, yielding 85% of all graduating first majors by year three of the upcoming assessment cycle.

The rating of the honors projects results in approximately 10% achieving highest distinction, 50% achieving high distinction and 40% achieving distinction. [These percentages are based on multi-year estimates. In a particular year, the range for any one of the distinction levels could go from 0% to 100%.] We would like to have a higher rate of results in the high and highest distinction categories, resulting jointly in an increase of 10% by year three of the current assessment cycle. These new percentages will be determined by application of the newly developed standard scoring rubric. 

In recognition of the need to continue and deepen systematic program assessment, the Linguistics Program will phase in the following processes over the course of the next five years:

(1) Data on student performance based on specific embedded test questions, rubric-scored research projects and portfolios will be collected. The program faculty will discuss the possibility of implementation of a process of embedding assignments within pre- and/or post-tests within and among core courses of the major.

(2) Application of a rubric based on a scoring process for all honors thesis and capstone course project products.

(3) The Linguistics program will enact a yearly process directed by the chair and director of undergraduate studies to evaluate each graduating senior in the program using SLO. This process will take place in the spring semesters, beginning in the 2008-09 academic year, and include individual interviews with each major that includes their portfolio and honors thesis project, if one is elected by the student.

(4) Increase the faculty by two in order to attain these objectives. One position has
already been approved and the search is planned for 2008-09. A second position could be possible if shared with another departmental unit. Future years will follow a similar process, guided by information gathered from the assessment findings and feedback process.

(PDF Version: Mission Statement, Goals & Learning Objectives)