The
latest report of a working group assessing student learning at Hamilton
is shedding more light on the factors influencing students' choices of
courses since distribution requirements were eliminated with the new
curriculum in fall 2001.
Project Director Dan Chambliss, the
Christian A. Johnson Excellence in Teaching Professor of Sociology,
said the project's research has found that students rely heavily on
professors' reputations when making course selections, suggesting they
are making better use of social networks.
"The kids who are a
little bit motivated, who make the effort to find the right professors,
can have a great experience here, and have worlds of opportunity open
to them," Chambliss said. "I like to say that they own the place."
The
document is the third of five annual reports being submitted to the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation as part of the Hamilton Project for
Assessment of Liberal Arts Education. The project is funded by a
$610,000 grant from Mellon to assess student learning in a liberal arts
setting. It was extended two years beyond its original three-year term
to allow for the collection of additional data and further analysis of
findings in hopes that the assessment project can become a model for
other liberal arts colleges.
An earlier report
confirmed one aspect of the Hamilton experience to which many alumni
can attest ' the College's academic program enhances students' writing
and oral communication skills. The authors of a 2000 Mellon report
wrote, "The strength of Hamilton's training of students in writing came
through clearly. It is a skill that is both broadly valued as a
practical skill, and is clearly taught well at Hamilton." The 2000
report also found that both students and alumni believe "at every level
that writing is important to their success and that Hamilton improved
their writing."
Chambliss noted that the assessment project's
latest research supports the 2000 report. In particular, Hamilton
students showed significant improvement between their high school
essays and their first-year papers. In addition, senior papers were
superior to those written in the first year in several ways, including
unified and coherent paragraphs, wise word choice and theme development.
Papers
written by Hamilton students were evaluated using a system of "blind,
objective grading" by outside evaluators who had no connection with the
students or with their work. The evaluators were selected based on
their experience teaching writing at the college level.
Students
surveyed indicated several factors that improved their writing skills
including the number of papers written, peer support and use of the
Writing Center. Students praised faculty members who gave "voluminous
feedback," citing comments on papers as the most beneficial response
from professors.
Students still need to work on grammar, mechanical errors and spelling, Chambliss said.
The
assessment project is also looking at how oral communication is taught
at the College. Thus far, it has found that most student presentations
were "organized and focused," and that students showed improvement in
their presentation skills after their first year. While presentations
by seniors were "generally better and more consistent in their quality
than those of first-year students," presentations in the Sophomore
Seminars (team-taught interdisciplinary courses that culminate with an
integrative project and public presentation) were found to be
"comparable to those of seniors in originality and thoroughness."
Chambliss
points out the benefits of assessing the curriculum at the same time
many new components are being developed and fine-tuned. "We had a
special opportunity to design a new curriculum and then assess it as it
was being implemented," he said. "Now we can modify certain aspects as
we go along based on what students tell us is working or not working."
Another
significant finding indicates that students' experiences in
introductory courses have a major impact on their academic path --
students who "click" with a professor are much more likely to pursue
additional coursework or a concentration in that field; students who
have a poor experience tend not to take another course in that
department.
"It's the most important time, when students are
trying out different things," Chambliss said. "The intro course is a
gateway, and it's important that the gate be open. It could be a case
of a teacher not being good for a particular course. Sometimes it might
be the case that the department uses visiting faculty to teach an intro
course, someone who may only be here for a year. Well, it takes you at
least a year to get to know the students, so you may have someone
trying something new that doesn't work well. We pay a real cost for not
making sure intro courses are top notch."
Another area of
concern is the number of students steering away from math and science
courses. Student enrollments across disciplines have remained unchanged
with the introduction of the new curriculum, but this finding obscures
the fact that science majors at Hamilton are taking more science
courses, while non-science majors are likely to take fewer science
courses or none at all.
"It's not a problem specific to
Hamilton, it's a problem with secondary and higher education in the
United States," Chambliss said.
Chambliss, who will spend the
2005-06 academic year working on a book about the assessment project
findings, said his research has benefited from a willingness by the
College's administrators to listen to findings about "the things that
are working well, as well as the things that aren't. That's a
courageous position. They deserve credit for that," he said.
