Develop students' analytic, writing, speaking, and professional skills

Throughout their enrollment, students must complete extensive writing assignments that require the following abilities: analyze scholarly writing, interpret empirical data, understand argumentation, express well thought out opinions, and write clearly and correctly.

Faculty members teaching POL 379 Research and Writing will randomly select 5 papers from each course. All papers will be reviewed by the faculty members who teaching Research and Writing. Faculty members will evaluate the papers using a grading rubric designed and agreed by said faculty. Papers will be scored on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 being the highest.

We expect that: (1) Faculty scores will not vary in the vast majority of cases and when there is a difference in scores the difference will not be greater than a single point. If faculty scores do differ beyond a single point, faculty will be asked to review the grading rubric and discuss its application. (2) At least 70% of the papers will score a 3 or above. (3) Faculty members teaching POL 379 will expand their syllabi section addressing theory development and hypothesis testing compared to 2008-2009 where the findings indicated that although scores were consistently over a 3, students were losing a point related to theory and hypotheses development. (4) By the end of 2009-2010 we will have completed and assessed the pilot program consisting of a writing assignment that will require multiple drafts. We expect that the changes made in (3) and (4) will result in improvements in this area of the rubric.

Faculty teaching #379 used a scoring system of 1 - 5 to evaluate 5 randomly selected papers from each section of #379. Faculty scores differed in 7 out of the 10 papers sampled. However, the difference in scores never exceeded a single point.  The average score was 3.5, a higher average than last's year's average. In 2009 - 2010 the department identified a set of actions designed to increase students' writing skills and knowledge of theory and hypothesis testing. Since that time the average scores have continued to increase. Although the findings indicate that we continue to exceed our expectations for this particular goal, faculty teaching #379 courses believe student performance needs to be improved in the areas of research design and literature review.

All faculty teaching #379 will meet prior to the Fall 2011 semester to discuss the most effective strategies for increasing students' knowledge of research design and literature review. The strategies, once identified, will be implemented consistently across all #379 courses beginning in fall 2011.

Build students' knowledge of government and politics, citizenship skills, and civic engagement

Throughout their enrollment, students will explore the following themes in a national and international context: the structure and operation of various forms of government, political philosophies, informal and formal political organizations and actors, public policies, and political behavior.

Each field of study will be assigned a team of 2 faculty members who have expertise in the particular field. Each semester the individual teams will receive and review 5 randomly selected papers from an upper division course in their respective fields. Faculty members from each subfield will evaluate the papers using a grading rubric designed and agreed upon by faculty in each subfield. Papers will be scored on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 being the highest.

We expect that: (1) Faculty scores will not vary in the vast majority of cases and when there is a difference in scores the difference will not be greater than a single point. If faculty scores do differ beyond a single point, faculty will be asked to review the grading rubric and discuss its application. (2) At least 70% of the papers will score a 3 or above. . However, the findings of the 2008-2009 analysis indicated that although scores were consistently over a 3, students were losing a point related to analytical and theoretical development.(3) By the end of 2009-2010 we will have completed and assessed the pilot program consisting of a writing assignment that will require multiple drafts. We expect that the changes made as a result of the pilot program will result in improvements in this area of the rubric.

Faculty with expertise in the department's three subfields (American, International Relations, and Comparative Politics) used a scoring system of 1 - 5 to evaluate 5 randomly selected papers from core courses in each subfield.  Faculty evaluated 30 papers. Faculty scores differed in 18 out of the 30 papers. However, the difference in scores never exceeded a single point.  The average score was 3.3, a higher average than last's year's average. In 2009 - 2010 the department identified a set of actions designed to increase students' writing skills. Since that time the average scores have continued to increase. Although the findings indicate we continue to exceed our expectations for this particular goal, faculty teaching concentration core courses believe student learning needs to be improved in two areas. (1) Students' writing skills need further improvement. Faculty have identified several specific problems: use of passive voice, common grammar errors, misuse of quotation marks, and excessive capitalization.  (2) Students' ability to navigate literature reviews without excessive support from faculty needs to be improved.

All faculty teaching core courses in the subfields will meet prior to the Fall 2011 semester to discuss the most effective strategies for improving students' writing skills and students' ability to conduct literature reviews. The strategies, once identified, will be implemented consistently across all core courses beginning in fall 2011.