1  

Division of Criminal Justice Program Review Self-Study Spring 2012

Option C: Focused Inquiry

Introduction The Division of Criminal Justice has chosen self-study “Option C: Focused Inquiry” as outlined in “Program Review Pilot Study, 2007-2009/Manual of Procedures for 2008-2009 Cycle (the most current guidelines available). Option C requires three main Sections: 1) General information about the program; 2) A statement of intended student learning outcomes and associated assessment data at the program level; and 3) The results of a focused inquiry addressing issues of particular interest/concern to the program itself, in the context of what is currently important to the College and University. The report below addresses each of these components in turn. Specifically, Section 1 starts with a very brief historical overview of the Division, and then outlines key data concerning students and faculty. Because the information required in Section 2 is directly addressed in “Chapter 2” of this Self-Study (which is labeled as Section 3.2 below), we only briefly outline our responses within Section 2 itself, and, instead, direct the reader(s) to the exact section(s) of the Self-Study in which each Section 2 component is specifically addressed. Section 3, the results of our Self-Study, is organized according to four major sections, or “Chapters” (labeled serially as 3.1., 3.2., 3.3., and 3.4.), which correspond exactly to the four primary questions we proposed to answer in the Self-Study Proposal that we submitted in Fall 2011. Those questions are as follows: 1. What are the values guiding our curricular decisions? 2. What do we want our students to acquire specifically in the area of content, skills, and values from our value-guided curriculum? 3. What are we doing to monitor and insure that our value-guided curriculum is doing what we want it to? 4. How will we utilize assessment findings to advance specified curricular outcomes and promote ongoing faculty development? Section 1 General information about the program, e.g., data on students, faculty, staff, facilities, etc. (most of which is supplied by the Office of Institutional Research). From its humble beginnings as four evening courses in police science and administration in the 1950s, the Division of Criminal Justice has experienced unprecedented growth in the decades since, evolving into one of the largest and most influential programs of its type in the United States, and into one of the most popular majors on this campus. Its multi-disciplinary curriculum and diverse faculty body, comprising approximately 50 full-time faculty and part-time faculty, are responsible for graduating 965 undergraduates since fall of 2009 (SacVault, Degrees

2  

Awarded by Department). Criminal Justice graduates are heavily represented in leadership positions within criminal justice agencies throughout Northern California. Three of the last five Sacramento County Sheriffs are graduates of the program as is the Chief of Police for Sacramento, and the Chief of Police for the city of Roseville. Demand for the program has increased steadily and consistently, and as of Fall 2012 the Criminal Justice Program had more than 2000 majors and pre-majors. The Division of Criminal Justice has enjoyed a prominent history of attracting students to Sac State. Criminal Justice is the second most popular major at Sac State at 7%, behind only Business at 10% (CSUS Fact Book summary, 2011). The Division currently comprises 32.8% of the student enrollment for the college of Health and Human Services (CJ Fact book, 2011, pg. 2). Fifty-two percent of Criminal Justice students are of minority status as compared to 45.5% represented by the University at large. Currently, 48.3% of Criminal Justice students are female (CJ Fact book, 2011, pg. 2). The Division enjoys the reputation that most Criminal Justice students come to Sac State for the Criminal Justice Program as opposed to finding the program after arrival at the University. Although most Criminal Justice students come from the university region, a review of zip codes of applicants continually illustrates the program’s appeal to a diverse geographical representation of students; approximately 52% of admitted applicants reside outside the CSUS recruitment region, (SacVault, admitted applicants by College/Department). CSU Chico, CSU Sonoma, and CSU Stanislaus have satellite Criminal Justice programs. The Division’s interdisciplinary curriculum and the faculty expertise to teach it exceeds the breadth and depth of curricula delivered at most other major university Criminal Justice programs across the United States. The Division awards degrees to approximately 400 undergraduates per year and has been able to sustain this rate even with reduced resource allocations and despite having the highest student-to-faculty ratio (SFR) in the University, which increased from a low of 33 for Fall 2007 to a high of 49.6 during Spring 2011. The University’s SFR during this same period was 20 and 24.4, respectively. The Division’s 10-year SFR mean for both lower and upper division courses is 31.7; the College’s is 22.2; and the University’s is 23.1 (CJ Fact book, 2011, pg. 10). The Division of Criminal Justice enjoys a diverse body of 25 full-time faculty and 21 part-time faculty able to teach a broad, multi-disciplinary curriculum in the areas of Law and Courts, Criminology, Investigations and Forensics, Public Administration, Corrections, Offenses and Offenders, and numerous supporting courses. All full-time faculty possess terminal degrees, and all part-time faculty must possess a minimum of a Master’s Degree. Ratios of full-time to part-time faculty are in flux due to changing FTE targets and the inability to replace full-time faculty retirements (5). The information below is available from SacVault. Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Total # course sections

FT faculty

PT faculty

Total # course sections

FT faculty

PT faculty

Total # course sections

FT faculty

PT faculty

Total # course sections

FT faculty

PT faculty

86 55 31 96 57 39 88 55 33 89 58 32

64% 36% 59% 41% 63% 38% 65% 36%

3  

Section 2 A statement of intended student learning outcomes at the program level (labeled as 2.1. below); methods for assessing them, including the use of direct measures (labeled as 2.2. below); assessment results to date (labeled as 2.3. below); and documentation of the use of assessment results in efforts to achieve program improvement (labeled as 2.4. below). The information required in this Section is directly addressed in “Chapter 2” of this Self-Study (which is labeled as Section 3.2). Therefore, the responses to each of the four components required in Section 2 (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4) are only briefly outlined here, but are addressed in full detail in Section 3.2 below. In order to reduce redundancy and increase clarity, we direct the reader(s) to the exact section(s) of the Self-Study in which each Section 2 component is more thoroughly addressed. Section 2.1 A statement of intended student learning outcomes at the program level: In 2001, the Division of Criminal Justice was one of the first academic programs at CSUS to record an assessment plan. Provided below is the Division’s current iteration of this assessment plan, which includes an outline of intended student learning outcomes at the program level. Student learning outcomes are most thoroughly addressed in Section 3.3. Goals: Program goals and objectives are addressed within three critical areas of student performance and development: 1. Student knowledge of the field of criminal justice. 2. Demonstrated academic skills and abilities. 3. Student personal growth and citizenship. Student Knowledge of the Field of Criminal Justice - Goals Graduates of the CSUS Criminal Justice Program should demonstrate a knowledge base that concerns the areas of: (these are reflective of the criminal justice curriculum core) a. criminal justice and juvenile justice processes (law, crime, and the administration of justice) b. criminology (the causes of crime, social responses to crime, typologies, offenders, and victims) c. law enforcement (police administration, crime investigation, leadership, problem-oriented policing, community policing, police and community relations, planning ethics, and the legal use of discretion) d. law adjudication (criminal law, prosecution, defenses to crimes, evidence, legal procedure, court procedure, alternative dispute resolution) e. corrections (incarceration, treatment and legal rights of offenders, community-based corrections, restorative justice)

4  

Demonstrated Academic Skills & Abilities - Goals Graduates of the CSUS Criminal Justice Program should be able to: a. analyze information b. think critically c. read effectively d. speak effectively e. write effectively f. research effectively g. solve problems in a diverse and global environment Student Personal Growth & Citizenship - Goals Graduates of the CSUS Criminal Justice Program should have developed: a. interpersonal and leadership skills b. an acute sense of one's personal identity and potential c. cultural awareness, flexibility, and sensitivity to fully appreciate the values and differences of a diverse society d. the ability to recognize the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of a citizen e. a commitment to social justice and professional ethics Section 2.2 Methods for assessing intended learning outcomes at the program level, including the use of direct measures: Methods for assessing intended learning outcomes and the direct measures used are thoroughly addressed in Section 3.3. Section 2.3 Assessment results to date: Assessment results to date are thoroughly addressed in Section 3.3. In addition, the Division’s current in-process assessment efforts are directly addressed in Section 3.4. Section 2.4 Documentation of the use of assessment results in efforts to achieve program improvement: Documentation of the use of assessment results in efforts to achieve program improvement is thoroughly addressed in Section 3.3, and the Division’s continuing efforts to achieve program improvement is also addressed in Section 3.4.

5  

Section 3 The results of a focused inquiry addressing issues of particular interest/concern to the program itself, in the context of what is currently important to the College and University. In September 2011, we proposed to examine and answer the following four questions as the focus of our Self-Study:

1. What are the values guiding our curricular decisions? 2. What do we want our students to acquire specifically in the area of content, skills, and

values from our value-guided curriculum? 3. What are we doing to monitor and insure that our value-guided curriculum is doing what

we want it to? 4. How will we utilize assessment findings to advance specified curricular outcomes and

promote ongoing faculty development? The Sections, or “Chapters,” that follow are organized according to the four questions above, and are labeled serially as 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Specifically, in Section 3.1 we begin with a brief discussion of the Division’s recently revised Mission Statement, since it is a definitive expression of our Program values; we then explain how these values have guided and continue to guide our curriculum in specific ways; we then finish with a brief discussion of how these values have influenced our recent decision to apply for impacted status, effective in Fall 2012. In Section 3.2, we answer question 2 of our Self-Study by discussing the results of an in-depth, open-ended qualitative survey that was administered to all full-time faculty in order elicit narrative responses concerning the ways in which Criminal Justice faculty members actively work, on a day-to-day level, to realize the values underlying our Mission Statement in their classrooms and through their assignments. From nearly fifty pages of responses, Division faculty focused specifically on four key Mission Statement values the most: 1) Students will be “exposed to the theories, applications and ethics related to crime and justice”; 2) Students will appreciate “evidence-based reasoning, creative and critical thinking”; 3) Students will appreciate “diversity and equity”; and 4) Students will “believe in lifelong learning.” In Section 3.3, we answer question 3 of our Self-Study by thoroughly addressing the Division’s past and current assessment efforts. First, we briefly discuss the history of assessment in our Division, explaining, in the process, the key information required in Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 above. We then discuss our most recent efforts at improving three learning outcomes that the Division has collectively identified as being of prime importance: 1) Student Writing; 2) Critical Thinking; and 3) Knowledge Acquisition. We then discuss two interrelated, and mutually-reinforcing advising efforts at the program level: 1) the Division’s Pre-Law Advising Program; and 2) the Division’s Advising Center. In Section 3.4, we answer question 4 of our Self-Study by first discussing two key current assessment efforts: 1) The development of a Division table that is currently in use to help inform and plot the next five-year assessment course as it relates to the Division achieving the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals; and 2) The identification of, through a formative process, another new, long-term assessment plan. We then further discuss additional elements of

6  

the in-depth qualitative survey discussed in Section 3.2 that focus on suggestions Criminal Justice faculty members made concerning issues of faculty development. Section 3.1 What are the values guiding our curricular decisions? This Self-Study is a sustained focus on and examination of the values that anchor our collective identity, as well as guide our current and future decisions. In this Section, therefore, we begin with a brief discussion of the Division’s recently revised Mission Statement, since it is a definitive expression of our values; we then explain how these values have guided and continue to guide our curriculum in specific ways. Finally, we discuss how these values have influenced our recent decision to apply for impacted status, effective Fall 2012. In addition, within the Mission Statement itself, which we provide immediately following this paragraph, we anticipate our discussion in Section 3.2 by highlighting and numbering the four key Mission Statement values that Criminal Justice faculty alluded to most when responding to the in-depth, open-ended qualitative survey that we administered in order address the second question of our Self-Study: What do we want our students to acquire specifically in the area of content, skills, and values from our value-guided curriculum?

The mission of the Division of Criminal Justice is to prepare the leaders of tomorrow’s criminal justice community to make positive decisions. Through a multi-disciplinary curriculum and a faculty with diverse expertise, experiences and perspectives, (1) students are exposed to the theories, applications and ethics related to crime and justice. Guided by a faculty dedicated to innovative teaching, scholarly achievement and service, students will become confident, visionary professionals who (2) appreciate evidenced based reasoning, creative and critical thinking, (3) diversity, equity, and (4) believe in lifelong learning.

Development and Revision of the Mission Statement The current Mission Statement for the Division of Criminal Justice is the product of thoughtful consideration of the Divisions goals and values. In November of 2006 the faculty held a “round table discussion” that first articulated the need for review of our curriculum and revision of the Mission Statement. The Division’s Curriculum Committee was asked to review the prior version of the Mission Statement and propose revised language. In the spring of 2007 the Curriculum Committee sought input from the content area “cohort’s” requesting feedback about their course offerings in the major core and whether they recommended revision in view of the suggested changes discussed the previous semester. In August of 2007 at the faculty retreat, the Curriculum Committee introduced a revision of the Mission Statement to the faculty and held a break out session to discuss overall Division vision. In October of 2007 at a meeting of the full faculty, the Curriculum Committee presented a memo detailing the history of the Mission Statement and invited discussion on the proposed revised language. In November of 2008 the current Mission Statement was adopted by the full faculty. Because of the significance of the Mission Statement to the Division, the process of revising it intentionally involved the input of as many of the faculty members as possible. As a result, the process was lengthy, but the result is a reflection of the opinions and passions of our very diverse faculty and is an excellent synopsis of the goals and values the Division is seeking to achieve.

7  

Curriculum Requirements for the Criminal Justice Major

Faculty of the Division of Criminal Justice agree that graduates of the CSUS Criminal Justice Program should demonstrate a knowledge base that is reflective of the Criminal Justice curriculum core as well as those areas represented by supporting elective courses. The curriculum represents the interdisciplinary standards for what Division faculty members consider a rigorous, high quality criminal justice education. These standards reflect those of the American Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), the national and most authoritative body for the advancement of university level criminal justice education. These standards for knowledge acquisition prepare graduates with a solid foundation of interdisciplinary knowledge that advantages them as they pursue diverse opportunities within the local, national, and global criminal justice professional community. As such, the Division’s faculty and its assessment plan (which is outlined fully in Section 2.1 above) have identified the interdisciplinary core knowledge base as:

a. criminal justice and juvenile justice processes (law, crime, and the administration of justice)

b. criminology (the causes of crime, social responses to crime, typologies, offenders, and victims)

c. law enforcement (police administration, crime investigation, leadership, problem-oriented policing, community policing, police and community relations, planning, ethics, and the legal use of discretion)

d. law adjudication (criminal law, prosecution, defenses to crimes, evidence, legal procedure, court procedure, alternative dispute resolution)

e. corrections (incarceration, treatment and legal rights of offenders, community-based corrections, restorative justice)

These ACJS guidelines have guided the overall approach to the curriculum by the Division Curriculum Committee for many years. While our Division is not an ACJS certified program, these guidelines provide a frame work and are an articulation of “best practices” for criminal justice programs nationwide and in important ways we believe our curriculum exceeds these guidelines. For example, going beyond simply requiring knowledge in the area of law adjudication, all Division law faculty employ the case briefing method of study. This extremely rigorous approach to learning the law goes well beyond teaching substantive elements of crime or procedure by requiring students to engage in case analysis and rule application to unique fact patterns. The breadth of the Division’s curricular offerings is extraordinary when compared to criminal justice programs nationwide, including supporting courses from across the University campus, in addition to a very wide range of electives taught within the Division. The Curriculum Committee engaged in a full curricular review in 2002-2003. The 2002-2003 review resulted in some significant changes to the curriculum that was articulated in the 2006 Self-Study. That review process (evaluating the curriculum through the lens of the ACJS guidelines and content areas) has continued during the current review period (2006-2012), and annual review of the curriculum is now the norm in the Division in contrast to the periodic reviews conducted historically.

8  

Faculty cohorts based on core content areas in the curriculum (law, policing/administration, corrections, criminological theory, etc.) convened in 2006. These cohorts were asked to review the core courses in their content area and answer the series of questions listed below. These responses informed the Curriculum Committee’s requests to update the curriculum that year.

1. Are there courses within your area which might logically be collapsed/combined into a single course?

2. Are there multiple courses within your area or related electives where faculty are choosing to use the same text book creating a problem of repetition?

3. Are there courses from within your area which you think should be added/removed from the core curriculum?

4. Are the learning objectives for each faculty member teaching the same course uniform and do they include ethics, diversity, and a writing requirement (if they are core courses)?

5. Are there other catalog changes you would recommend proposing for the upcoming 2008-2010 catalog?

As a result of the 2006 review, in the spring of 2007 the policing and administration cohort determined that CRJ 163 should be moved out of the core and made an elective. The law cohort agreed upon a requirement that all students in CRJ 121 Structure & Function of the American Courts be required to observe criminal court proceedings in person. In addition, cohorts recommended other various changes to their course learning objectives and sought to ensure the faculty teaching the various sections of each course were utilizing the required objectives. Another significant change moved forward by the Division Curriculum Committee was a full renumbering of all CRJ courses in the spring of 2009. The goals were to create a more coherent course sequence and to improve student course sequencing and time-to-graduation. Because faculty cohorts have proven very effective, the Division’s curriculum continues to be reviewed annually by them in each content area. The cohort committees assess course content, assignments, teaching strategies, texts, and learning objectives. These annual reviews enable the faculty experts in their content areas to propose changes to the curriculum and ensures that the Division curriculum continually evolves to reflect not only the foundational aspects of the curriculum core but the most current and significant criminal justice related subjects and issues. Examples of electives reflecting this: CRJ 128 Administrative Law for Public Safety Personnel; CRJ 172 Comparative Criminal Justice Systems; CRJ 133 Fundamentals of Computer Crime; CRJ 156 Introduction to Crime and Intelligence Analysis; CRJ 106 Analysis of Career Criminals; CRJ 174 CRJ Systems of the Future; CRJ 181j White Collar Crime; and CRJ 190 Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice, a Capstone Course. The Division’s contemporary curriculum is also reflected in the Divisions six D2 GE offerings: CRJ 1 Introduction to Criminal Justice and Society; CRJ 112 Gangs and threat Groups in America; CRJ 114 Sexual Offenses and Offenders; CRJ 115 Violence and Terrorism; CRJ 117 American CRJ and Minority Groups; and CRJ 118 Drug Abuse and Criminal Behavior.

One important characteristic of the Division’s faculty body is the diverse level of individual faculty expertise and specialization that can be applied to the Division’s broad interdisciplinary

9  

curriculum. There are only a few University criminal justice programs across the country that can similarly reflect this. The results of the 2012 Self-Study survey, which is addressed fully in Section 3.2 below, highlight the rich diversity in of the Division faculty and demonstrate the broad range of practical teaching strategies employed in an effort to achieve the Division’s mission. In short, through the Division’s efforts to revise our Mission Statement, we have consciously and collectively provided a value-driven framework that guides not only our current curriculum but our decisions concerning the near-future as well. Indeed, this value-driven framework was key in guiding the Division’s Fall 2011 decision to request Program Impaction for Fall 2012, which was based on one overriding goal: optimizing resource allocation while maintaining program quality in the context of consistently increasing student demand and consistently shrinking resources. Impaction As noted previously in Section 1, Criminal Justice is the second most popular major at CSUS at 7%. Instead of taking a “wait-and-see” approach with respect to dwindling resource allocation and overwhelming student demand, the Division acted preemptively to ensure that the quality of its program could be ensured in the face of certain resource reductions, including faculty. The Division subsequently created, received approval for, and implemented an impacted program model to ensure an equitably accessible, quality criminal justice education. Beginning Fall 2012, this program offers to students the advising, scheduling, and faculty support to stand behind the Division’s promise to ensure students’ timely progress toward the degree. With minimal internal and external resources, the Division has taken control of its circumstances to the best of its ability to ensure a quality education within the limits of its operational capacity. The Division has adapted to its circumstances to achieve its mission to offer students the highest quality criminal justice education possible; and it does so at the expense of no other academic unit. Section 3.2 What do we want our students to acquire specifically in the area of content, skills, and values from our value-guided curriculum? In order to answer the second question we proposed in our Self-Study, we asked all full time faculty members to respond to the following set of interrelated requests, all of which were geared towards eliciting in-depth, qualitative responses concerning the ways in which Criminal Justice faculty members actively work, on a day-to-day level, to realize the values undergirding our Mission Statement in their classrooms and through their assignments: (1) Please describe in detail one specific innovative teaching strategy, program, activity, or assignment you use in the classroom; (2) then please discuss how this activity relates to and actualizes one or more of the values that are embodied in our Mission Statement; (3) please also describe the class context in which the strategy is used, and which class learning objective(s) it’s intended to fulfill; (4) finally, please “narrate,” across the whole, the connections you believe this activity makes between our larger program values and your smaller-scale class strategies (e.g., what have you found to be most valuable in the evolution/development/refinement of this

10  

activity for your relationship to the program, the classroom, your students, and your own work as a teaching-scholar/practitioner?). Our goal here was reflective and exploratory, rather than predictive and confirmatory, in order to produce in-depth, qualitative narratives that could inform current and future discussions concerning collective pedagogical philosophies, goals, and outcomes. In brief, through these responses, the Division produced nearly fifty pages of reflections, the overwhelming majority of which can be summarized thus: Almost universally, Division faculty strive to bridge the gap between criminal justice theory and practice through creative methods of student engagement, all of which builds from existing student interests and concerns. Some of these methods include case analysis in law classes; media analysis in theory classes; literature reviews and fieldwork in methods classes; role playing in investigations classes; autobiographical analysis throughout the curriculum; and service learning via the Division’s Sac-Mentoring and internship programs. The overriding goal underlying all of these efforts is to have students take ownership of their own work in order to shape lifelong learners who recognize themselves as participants in a larger world that requires not only facility with, but mastery of critical analytical skills, evidence-based argumentation, ethical reasoning, and effective written and oral communication. What follows below is a further elucidation of the key results from that effort, focusing specifically on the four key Mission Statement values that Criminal Justice faculty alluded to most: 1) Students will be “exposed to the theories, applications and ethics related to crime and justice”; 2) Students will appreciate “evidence-based reasoning, creative and critical thinking”; 3) Students will appreciate “diversity and equity”; and 4) Students will “believe in lifelong learning.” Value 1: Students will be “exposed to the theories, applications and ethics related to crime and justice” Many faculty use a variety of creative assignments in core and elective classes to satisfy both learning objectives for the particular course while focusing on value-driven curriculum and exposing students to criminological theories, applications of these theories, and on the ethical principles that relate to crime and justice. Criminal Justice is an applied major, and it is vital to give students the opportunity to link theory to practical application whenever possible. Additionally, since criminal justice practitioners must be exemplars of professional integrity, students in the Division need to have an excellent sense of their ethical responsibilities. It is in our mission and it is each faculty member’s responsibility to make sure that each student is well-versed in their ethical obligations from every standpoint possible. Professor Cater, for example, uses a unique teaching method of mock interviews and interrogations to help focus students in his CRJ 152 Interviewing and Detection of Deception class on the application and practice of this important technique. This strategy directly relates to our Mission Statement in that it exposes students to “applications and ethics related to crime and justice.” Students actually conduct an interview/interrogation, applying information learned in class to a simulated situation they will likely encounter in real life. This also requires them to apply ethical principles to a process involving constitutional rights of individuals.

11  

Similarly, Professor Timothy Croisdale developed his own course, CRJ 156 Introduction to Crime and Intelligence Analysis, as well as innovative teaching techniques to help the Division embody the values of helping students combine theory and practice, while getting to observe practical applications of novel crime and justice techniques. This class has always focused on the practical application of crime and intelligence analysis techniques and their ties to the theories on which they are based. Students routinely apply techniques of crime and intelligence analysis giving them practical application of course material. Likewise, Professor Tim Capron, who teaches CRJ 141 Police and Society, also uses a method that highlights our Division’s value of attaching theory to practice and demonstrating applications in the field through an innovative assignment. Students interview police officers and share their experiences with their classmates. This assignment has helped students understand more about the system, and gets them out into the field with firsthand knowledge of how a police officer thinks and feels. Professor Yvette Farmer also uses a practical exercise in her research methods class to impart the value of using ethics in conducting research by distributing the ACJS (American Criminal Justice Society’s) Code of Ethics regarding obtaining informed consent. She discusses vulnerable populations such as inmates, and their rights regarding being able to consent to research, and the steps she takes to make sure that populations such as substance abusing moms understand their rights. This activity connects students receiving research-related information in a University classroom with what researchers do when collecting data from people in the real world. In her words, “it fosters a bridge from academic learning to practical experience.” Professor Will Vizzard helps bridge the gap for students between the theoretical and the practical by developing student understanding of how technical skill, science, law, personal commitment, initiative and sheer luck combine to produce successful criminal prosecutions. Students are assigned a nonfiction work relating to a criminal investigation and encouraged to read this book early in the course. The students must then write a ten page analysis of the investigation addressing both the key facts of the case and explaining how critical actions, events and evidence shaped the final result. Last, Professor Hugh Wilson has used assignments in CRJ 190 Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice to demonstrate the Division’s values of helping students pair criminal theory with practice and applications; improvement in writing ability; and promoting higher levels of critical thinking and ethical reasoning in the application of law relative to the tragic, unintended death of a child. Students must demonstrate how they were able to use predetermined precepts of conduct and ethical reasoning to formulate, justify, and explain how and why they came to their specific decision after reading a scenario regarding the death of a child. Value 2: Students will appreciate “evidence-based reasoning, creative and critical thinking” The Criminal Justice Division highly values imparting the aforementioned values to our students. Almost all course assignments are devised with these goals in mind, and the faculty clearly aspires to infuse these core values deeply into the minds of our students. When we, as a faculty,

12  

envision our students in their careers, it is these values that are most firmly implanted as life-saving and necessary in a potentially dangerous and “think on your feet” field of study. For example, Professor Hugh Wilson aims to promote higher levels of critical analysis, problem solving, ethical reasoning, and inductive reasoning to avoid predispositions, while the students are synthesizing and comparing information to determine its veracity, and also while the students are establishing command of the subject matter, using a compelling, problem solving scenario in his investigation courses. Students are given a fact scenario that provides a compelling (on its face) circumstantial case for guilt of an alleged perpetrator for murder. Within each piece of compelling evidence is an investigative sub-set of truths that if investigated, analyzed, and questioned properly, leads to the conclusive and objective conclusion that the alleged perpetrator is not guilty of the crime in question. Similar scenarios are given in which the case is the opposite. This instills the value that the ethic, quality, and integrity of their investigative work can in itself, mean life or death outside the truth of the situation. Along the same lines, Professor Dimitri Bogazianos helps students to develop evidence-based critical thinking and reasoning skills by having them find media articles concerning a single justice-related event so that students (of different levels in different courses) can analyze the articles thematically—using a method of qualitative data analysis called grounded theory, which is discussed throughout the semester—in order to examine the ways in which the “truth” of that case has been constructed through media coverage. The larger goal of these papers is to inculcate the habits of evidence-based analysis and synthesis that underlie all forms of effective communication in order to empower students with the critical tools necessary for understanding the massive flux of mediated data about criminal justice that they are exposed to at ever-increasing frequencies. The required paper format, therefore, serves as a multipurpose method of academic and professional training in core analytical and evidentiary communication within the field, which are core values found in our Mission Statement as well as specific learning objectives articulated in many of our classes. Professor Dan Okada also uses the values of creative and critical thinking in his CRJ 102 Crime and Punishment classes by having students imagine what might compel them to commit a crime, explain the reason for the commission of the crime via the most appropriate theory, and then choose the best punishment to fit the crime. They are instructed to put their behavior into a scientific context and to analyze their behavior in an evidence-based fashion relying on their theoretical knowledge. This assignment helps students to critically examine why individuals might commit a crime, without all the judgment that might normally cloud their ability to critically examine the situation. Similarly, Professor Sue Escobar uses reflexive assignments in her Drug Abuse and Criminal Behavior courses to help students further develop their critical reasoning skills. She believes that our students are too often sent on missions to research criminal justice issues without considering the roots of the theories used, or even the roots of their own views. The purpose of this assignment is intended to get students to examine and analyze their sources of knowledge and the major sources of knowledge that have shaped their beliefs about crime and the justice system, assumptions about human behavior and beliefs about the causes of criminality.

13  

Professor Laurie Kubicek utilizes a case reader in Law of Crimes, containing California court opinions addressing the specific content areas of law covered in the course material. The case briefing method of study is employed in the vast majority of American law schools and is considered to be an exceptional method for teaching students to analyze legal problems: first by identifying the legal issues raised by a set of facts or circumstances, then by articulating the appropriate legal rules to be employed in solving the problem, and finally by articulating their analysis of the rules of law applied to the specific facts in written format. The process of case briefing teaches students how to do this in a very natural way, by reading and analyzing court opinions. The students write case briefs for each of the cases assigned as class reading, those cases are discussed in class (in a Socratic format), and then students are tested by requiring them to evaluate a new independent set of facts utilizing the rules of law they have gleaned from the court opinions. This process equips students not only with the knowledge of substantive criminal law (e.g. what are the elements of homicide in California), but with invaluable critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills developed through the process of application of acquired knowledge to new hypothetical fact patterns. Dr. Kubicek, therefore, teaches students about the law in ways that stretch them to think in difficult analytical ways, and her methods are similar to the ways that they will learn if they decide to go to law school. For another example, in CRJ 123 she assigns students a course writing project that requires them to select a United States Supreme Court case from the course readings (constitutional criminal procedure cases relevant to the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments). Students then serve as counsel for the case and write mock appellate briefs for argument before the US Supreme Court. The students are required to research and identify the legal issue(s) involved in the case. The project is extremely challenging but well received by the students. They are often faced with arguing for a position they don’t always agree with (because they do not get to select their client in the case), and may be faced with arguing on behalf of the unsuccessful party in the actual decision, which is a very difficult analytical task. Professor Mary Maguire also uses creative and critical thinking assignments that capitalize on evidence-based information and reasoning in her capstone course. Students in the course are asked to identify a contemporary issue in criminal or social justice that poses a problem for society; they can choose to study an issue that is either of national or international significance. They are asked to write 5 distinct critical essays on their chosen issue for a public audience; after a significant editing process, their work is posted on the internet. In asking students to think independently and employ evidence based reasoning in their work, the assignment assists in building qualities of leadership and positive decision making. Last, Professor Jennie Singer uses an assignment in her CRJ 101 Introduction to Criminal Justice Research Methods course to help students learn evidence-based reasoning and develop their critical thinking skills while helping to link potentially meaningless and difficult research terms in interesting and meaningful ways so that students can appreciate the concepts and importance of research. The students are taught to find research, create research questions and hypotheses, develop and give a survey, analyze their results, and write a literature review in a step-by-step fashion. This helps them to appreciate evidence-based reasoning by exposing them to the scientific method and showing them how to formulate a research question and hypothesis from reading the scientific literature. They need to be able to stimulate their creative side in deciding

14  

on a topic, narrowing their topic, and deciding how to word each question, given the multiple ideas possible in the world. The entire exercise enhances their ability to think critically and to appreciate the critical thinking of others. Value 3: Students will appreciate “diversity and equity” It is very important to the Criminal Justice Division that our students develop knowledge of other cultures and sensitive ways to interact with individuals and groups who are not like they are. As criminal justice professionals, they will come across all types of people coming from a variety of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. Without having developed a strong understanding and empathy for all cultures, there will be a significant lack of ability for these professionals to perform their jobs with the necessary skills and insight. We in the Criminal Justice Division are adamant that our students not graduate without these values. Professor Ernest Uwazie, for example, focuses his students on the subject of diversity and equality, having them read and react to a newspaper or magazine each week. The goal is to focus on issues that pertain to justice/injustice concerning 7 identified minority groups: African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, People with Disabilities, Women, and the Lesbian/Gay population. They are then asked to write a 2-3 page paper based on key lessons and perspectives learned, problems identified, and recommendations. The students are assigned to a different group from their own, and are asked to interview 3-4 members of the assigned group on past and current experiences of justice and race relations; strategies for dealing with conflicts; and contributions of the group. Professor Sue Escobar has an assignment in her Drugs and Criminal Behavior class that focuses the students on the values of diversity and equality. Students are required to attend a minimum of three 12-step meetings (e.g., AA, NA, Al-Anon/Al-a-Teen, Nar-Anon) and then reflect on their own lives and experiences and on how they currently think about addicts and/or alcoholics. Many students explain that their views of addicts change; that they no longer see these people as “losers” or “low-lifes”; and that they are shocked, and sometimes horrified, when they see lawyers and other professionals attending these meetings. Other students comment on how shocked they are when they hear stories from recovered alcoholics who are still not legally of age to consume alcohol. This assignment helps students to have a much broader vantage point regarding diversity and those who struggle with addiction. Professor Bruce Bikle also uses a unique assignment in his Justice and Public Safety Administration course to get students to understand the concepts of diversity and equality. He uses the classic novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, to get the students to relate to a form or strategy for social control, as well as to demonstrate the trade-offs between a “perfect” system and the issues of personal liberty. Students are asked to evaluate the World State from their perspective as students of 21st century American public and public safety administration. This assignment “hits” the issues of multi-disciplinary viewpoints and applications and ethics with regard to the practice of Criminal Justice and societal control. Students have the opportunity to see that the issues of quality government are quite nuanced in regards to the concept of equality.

15  

Value 4: Students will “believe in lifelong learning” Possibly the most important value that a student can leave a university setting with is a belief and a desire for lifelong learning. Although all faculty members in our Division want all of their assignments to commit our students to life full of learning, the following examples of specific assignments have as their explicit goal the acquisition of a love of lifelong learning. Professor Ricky Gutierrez, for example, is passionate about the Sac-Mentoring Program, which teaches our students about the gift of giving back to others, which in turn helps the student givers to value a life filled with their own learning and mentoring. Program objectives include providing opportunities for enrolled students to simultaneously serve as mentors; as positive role models; to provide subject matter tutoring and assistance to protégés; to provide socialization experience in the world of young adults; and opportunities to develop meaningful contacts beyond the academic community. This type of experience facilitates the development of contextualized concepts of civic responsibility and civic engagement. The philosophical approach in the Sac-Mentoring program is that experiential learning is important in transferring academic knowledge to practical application. This process also helps to prepare students, who will be the leaders of tomorrow’s criminal justice community, to make positive life decisions and become confident, visionary professionals One key outcome associated with the Sac-Mentoring program that has been empirically tested and reported in the scholarly research is the effect this program has on graduation rates. As noted in Gutierrez, Reeves-Gutierrez, and Helms (on pg. 18 of “Service learning and criminal justice students: An assessment of the effects of co-curricular pedagogy on graduation rates,” forthcoming in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education), logistic regression results reveal "that after statistically holding constant key demographics and overall school academic performance, students who experienced a service learning component as a part of their academic training experienced a substantially improved likelihood of completing requirements and obtaining a university diploma. This result was not dependent on the demographic status of the students involved in the sample. Nor was it an artifact of overall school performance since GPA was statistically held constant in the respective models. In short, service learning appears to have benefitted those having contact with the program since these students on average appear to experience an increased likelihood of departing from the University with a diploma in hand." Similarly, Professor Lynette Lee works with her capstone students regarding the very nature of knowledge and knowing, in the hopes that this will help them learn more about the whys and how’s of learning. Only by understanding more about this complex process can students embrace learning in a true and lifelong way. Many of the values reflected in the Mission Statement are based on the assumption that students can move beyond their existing beliefs about knowledge as something either given to them by authority figures (the “absolutist” position—something that less common with our seniors than the lower-division students), or something that is viewed as completely subjective (the “multiplist” position). Dr. Lee, therefore, believes her work with students in this area will impart many of the skills and values listed in our Mission Statement in a number of key ways. (1) Strengthening their critical thinking skills by moving past the “all views are equally valid” position. (2) Helping students understand the purpose of, and ideally come to value the role of lifelong learning by pointing out how we can continue to develop our capacities

16  

for critical thinking over time, and by making it clear that we may need to alter our views as new information is produced. (3) Helping students develop the skills necessary to evaluate conflicting truth claims in order to help them build their capacities and confidence—and hence effectiveness—as professional decision-makers and problem solvers. (4) Offering students another explanation for why it is important to not only remain open to, but to also actively seek out a diversity of perspectives, as well as to understand that not all opinions are of equal merit. Some opinions can be judged as more valuable than others (those that are based on the most sound theory and greatest amount of valid and reliable evidence). (5) Highlighting the importance of using both theory and evidence to inform decision-making (both professional and personal), as well as the potential weaknesses of an over-reliance on empirical evidence by contrasting evidence-informed decision-making with evidence-based decision-making. Conclusion to Section 3.2 In summary, the nearly fifty pages of faculty responses to our in-depth, open-ended qualitative effort revealed an almost universal collective focus: Division faculty strive to bridge the gap between criminal justice theory and practice through creative methods of student engagement, all of which builds from existing student interests and concerns. Some of these methods include case analysis in law classes; media analysis in theory classes; literature reviews and fieldwork in methods classes; role playing in investigations classes; autobiographical analysis throughout the curriculum; and service learning via the Division’s Sac-Mentoring and internship programs. The overriding goal underlying all of these efforts is to have students take ownership of their own work in order to shape lifelong learners who recognize themselves as participants in a larger world that requires not only facility with, but mastery of critical analytical skills, evidence-based argumentation, ethical reasoning, and effective written and oral communication. In addition, all of these individual and collective efforts revolve around four key Mission Statement values: 1) Students will be “exposed to the theories, applications and ethics related to crime and justice”; 2) Students will appreciate “evidence-based reasoning, creative and critical thinking”; 3) Students will appreciate “diversity and equity”; and 4) Students will “believe in lifelong learning.” Section 3.3 What are we doing to monitor and insure that our value-guided curriculum is doing what we want it to do? In order to address the third question we proposed in our Self-Study, we first briefly discuss the history of assessment in our Division, explaining, in the process, the key information required in Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. above: the methods we have used for assessing intended student learning outcomes, including the use of direct and indirect measures (asked for in Section 2.2); assessment results to date (asked for in Section 2.3); and the use of assessment results in efforts to achieve program improvement (asked for in Section 2.4). We then discuss our most recent efforts at improving three learning outcomes that the Division has collectively identified as being of prime importance: 1) Student Writing; 2) Critical Thinking; and 3) Knowledge Acquisition. We finish by discussing two interrelated, and mutually-reinforcing advising efforts at the program level: 1) the Division’s Pre-Law Advising Program; and 2) the Division’s Advising Center.

17  

Assessment History In 2001, the Division of Criminal Justice was one of the first academic programs at CSUS to record an assessment plan. Since then the Division has pursued a philosophy of regular formative and summative assessment to ensure that the overall program, the curriculum and its interdisciplinary nature, and the faculty evolve to precede and influence changes and advancements in the academic discipline of criminal justice as well as guide professional practice. In addition, the Division’s assessment efforts have continually evolved to ensure not only the reflection of the Division, the College, and the University Mission Statements, but have acted to instill in Division graduates the ethical values associated with citizenship and stewardship of the discipline. The Division’s assessment efforts have also promoted the value of lifelong learning as a core precept in student development as achieved through the delivery of the curriculum. As discussed in Section 3.1 above, the Division utilizes a curriculum matrix to identify what areas of the curriculum and which individual courses target the specific goals of the overall assessment plan. Each faculty cohort assigned to the same course utilizes agreed upon learning objectives, identified in the course syllabus, to collectively focus the delivery of the course curriculum; which in turn, contributes to the overall achievement of goals in the Division’s assessment plan. These faculty cohorts, organized by related experience, training, expertise, and teaching assignment, oversee related combinations of courses taught within the curriculum. Faculty cohorts meet at least once annually, and often more frequently, to review and discuss learning objectives, texts, assignments, and individual materials to discuss, evaluate, and modify courses and their relevancy to the curriculum and the mission of the Division. The Division’s Assessment Committee utilizes feedback from these faculty cohorts to assist the Division with planning for its larger assessment efforts. Examples of these efforts are documented within the Division’s yearly assessment reports which are available from the University Assessment Coordinator at: http://webapps2.csus.edu/assessment/Reports/. In short, at the heart of the Division’s assessment culture and philosophy is that it is not just assessment of learning, but assessment for learning. Although the Division previously existed as a leader in outcomes assessment, the last seven years especially have exemplified the Division’s most forward thinking views and assessment practices. For example, in Fall 2004, the Division began instituting prerequisites to the program so that students would complete the coursework in a logical manner. The first of these was the Pre-Criminal Justice major; pre-major students were restricted to lower division Criminal Justice courses, so as to be better-prepared for upper division courses. When the lower division coursework was completed, students were then eligible for Criminal Justice major classes and upper division work. To assess specific knowledge gained relating to the learning objectives within the upper division core, the Division created a pre-test/post-test consisting of a multiple choice exam and essay prompt. The pre-test was first administered in Fall 2004 to incoming transfer students during orientation, and to exiting students enrolled in the capstone course, CRJ 194.

18  

During AY 05/06, the Division began administering the pre-test in CRJ 110, as it was a course in which all students should have enrolled upon completing the lower division classes; the post-test continued to be administered in CRJ 194. The Division also reviewed the exam and its administration, and addressed concerns raised about how well the exam tested the Division course objectives, the variability in the exam’s administration, and students’ lack of commitment to completing an un-weighted exam to the best of their abilities. In AY 06/07, the pre-test was removed from CRJ 110, and became the final requirement for reclassification from pre-major to major status. This change allowed a more uniform administration of the exam by placing it on the WebCT platform. However, it was found that the brevity of essays completed on WebCT made them very difficult to assess, versus the hand-written essays. A very small sample of pre-test/post-test comparison was available for analysis, as the students who first took the exam began to exit. The Division suspended the administration of the assessment exam in Fall 2007, while the Division began a thorough review of its practices and testing instrument. The Division faculty were surveyed regarding their classroom writing practices, using the information gathered as a discussion point for meetings of faculty class cohorts. The class cohorts began a review of the Division core class syllabi and course objectives to ensure that students taking the same course with different instructors were receiving the same body of knowledge. Pre-testing was discontinued in AY 08/09. In Fall 2008, both the multiple choice and essay portions of the exam were revised to reflect curriculum learning objectives and emphasize critical thinking, and administered to students in CRJ 194. The post-test administration was standardized, and given a weight of 10% of the student’s grade to ensure that students approached the exam seriously. A random sample of the essays was reviewed to test the instrument. Feedback from the students and faculty indicated some substantive and logistical problems with the questions that had been previously submitted for the multiple choice questions. The Assessment Committee once again revised the multiple choice portion of the exam in AY 09/10. It was evident that the course cohorts had been thoroughly reviewing their materials, as the new questions submitted provided a robust sample of the thinking of each cohort. The Committee’s review of the essay prompts found that time constraints and a substantive overlap caused the second question to be poorly or briefly answered. In response, the Committee combined the two questions into a single concise prompt. The revised post-test was piloted in Dr. Maguire’s Spring 2010 CRJ 194 class. The essay results were analyzed in Fall 2010, and found that our majors were able to think critically and communicate through writing at an above average (B-) level. In addition, in 2010/2011 the Division’s Assessment Committee electronically surveyed 377 CRJ alumni about perceptions on whether CRJ degree improved writing skills and critical thinking skills. Of these, 86.9% reported that their CJ training improved their writing skills, and 91.3% reported improvement in the ability to think critically as a result of earning their degree. Further, 93.6% reported that the Division prepared them for graduation, 76.7% reported that their degree helped their career, 74% reported that their degree prepared them for their field of choice, 88.1%

19  

reported that their degree positively impacted their way of life, and 80.4% reported that their degree will serve them in the future. The Division is deliberating on how to improve on this as it transitions in its new assessment processes. Last, the Division’s 2011/2012 assessment efforts have worked in concert with this Self-Study and reflect a deeper and more complex process to integrate the Division’s teaching values with the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals and is refining its assessment roadmap to ensure formative integration of periodic findings. Because one of the most important elements of our current assessment efforts includes a long-term assessment plan to inform Division decision-making and improvement for the next seven years, we discuss it more fully in Section 3.4 below, which also answers the fourth and last question of our Self-Study: How will we utilize assessment findings to advance specified curricular outcomes and promote ongoing faculty development? Our discussions in this Section also directly address the information asked for in Section 2.4 above: Documentation of the use of assessment results in efforts to achieve program improvement. In summary, all Criminal Justice faculty members are informed and practiced in the commitment to use assessment as an important decision making tool in determining the Division’s future directions. Even though it was not without some significant difficulty to infuse an accepted assessment culture into such a large and diverse faculty body supporting over 1800 majors, the Division has done so and remains committed to sustaining its assessment-oriented faculty and teaching culture established over the last several years. And, as an important element of this collective effort in the past few years has been a focus on improving three key learning outcomes, which are articulated below, and discussed in the section that follows: a) Improvement of student writing to meet diverse standards of competence required of criminal justice professionals. b) Improvement in student capacity to think critically to meet the changing and complex demands in the criminal justice environment that relate to ethical decision making and problem solving. c) Improving student ability to demonstrate competency of knowledge acquisition of the criminal justice curriculum core. Student Writing, Critical Thinking, and Knowledge Acquisition The Division’s recent efforts to improve student writing, critical thinking, and knowledge acquisition are key elements not only in our own collective commitment to the standards of the field of criminal justice, but they also, and significantly, parallel the aforementioned “Sacramento State’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals for the 21st Century,” which include the following five elements: 1) competence in the disciplines; 2) knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world; 3) intellectual and practical skills; 4) personal and social responsibility; and 5) integrative learning. The Division firmly believes that the Criminal Justice curriculum as a whole is represented within the objectives of every Baccalaureate Learning Goal listed above, and that our recent concentration on improving student writing, critical thinking, and knowledge acquisition is especially pertinent given these goals.

20  

For example, the Division utilizes the objective of improving student writing to increase not only student competency in the areas of written and oral communication, but as the primary medium to encourage critical and creative thinking, acquire information literacy through research for writing in the social sciences, as a basis for peer mentoring and problem solving, and as a way to establish and demonstrate competency in the discipline. Writing is utilized to integrate concepts from the interdisciplinary criminal justice curriculum, and it is used to demonstrate competency with quantitative analysis as required the by CRJ 101 Introduction to Criminal Justice Research Methods course. Writing is used extensively to promote and assess intercultural knowledge, awareness, and civic knowledge addressed in the Division’s six different area D2, Race and Ethnicity courses. Writing is required and emphasized in every Criminal Justice course. It helps prepare students for the WPJ and ultimately the writing intensive capstone course, CRJ 190. Even in an era of significantly increased class sizes for the Division, faculty have continued to engage in the work of incorporating student writing in every course. Similarly, elevating students’ capacity to think critically is a cornerstone of not only the Division’s assessment philosophy but its efforts to ensure a higher level of criminal justice education. Critical thinking is an essential component of students’ ability to demonstrate command of the curriculum and competency in the discipline. Critical thinking, combined with writing, is integral to the Division’s effort to teach and promote ethical reasoning and increase student capacity to assess the credibility of data and information retrieved through human and technological sources. Critical thinking and writing are important means by which students are required to apply knowledge and demonstrate complex problem solving capacity. Last, the interdisciplinary Criminal Justice curriculum core and the objectives identified in the Division’s assessment plan are represented significantly within the Baccalaureate Learning Goals. In addition to establishing competency in the discipline, the core assures integrative learning through its interdisciplinary structure. It directly addresses diversity, intercultural knowledge and competence, and civic engagement through service learning. It addresses information literacy and research methods in the social sciences. It emphasizes cumulative and life-long learning in a quickly changing and increasingly complex world. Beginning in AY 2013-2014, additional courses in Psychology, Sociology, History, Government, and Statistics will be required for admission to the major. In the sections that follow, we discuss each of the above goals and our assessment efforts towards them in-depth. Writing Criminal Justice Division faculty view competent student writing skills as critical to the success and upward mobility of criminal justice professionals as well as those students wishing to advance their academic careers. The Division’s large and diverse interdisciplinary faculty body believes that strengthening student writing is the job of all academic units and as part of the assessment process has taken aggressive steps to increase student writing competency. One important strength of the Division’s faculty body is the ability to improve student writing as it is required across a wide spectrum of the criminal justice professional and academic communities. The Division’s collective view

21  

is that student writing competency should reflect the ability to use writing as a medium for critical thinking and problem solving. In addition to the collective faculty view that writing competency is one critical trademark of having earned a CSUS Criminal Justice degree, regular faculty interaction with the criminal justice professional community affirms the need to equip students in the Division with writing skills that will promote their success in future academic and professional capacities. The view of the professional community which emphasized student writing competency was a significant influence in the Division’s decision to pursue writing as one of its first assessment objectives. Writing, therefore, is required and emphasized in every Criminal Justice course, whether legal briefs, research papers, or daily blogs. Writing is a primary instrument to progress toward and assess learning objectives. Writing strategies along with writing competency is a focus of every faculty cohort and Assessment Committee meeting and discussion. As described in earlier sections of this report, faculty cohorts identified by discipline meet at least once yearly, and usually more often, and discuss subject matter, learning objectives, assignments, teaching strategies, trends, and perceptions of student progress that include writing assessment. This cohort discussion process is used to formatively and summatively modify and redirect subject curriculum. The outcomes of these discussions are transmitted to the Division’s Assessment Committee, which facilitates assessment-related discussion at every monthly faculty meeting. Beginning in AY 2005/2006, writing assessment has been conducted yearly by administering consistent writing prompts in most sections of the Division’s required writing intensive capstone course. These assignments are assessed with a common rubric by members of the Assessment Committee. Additionally, all RTP evaluations comment on the quality of faculty writing strategies, assignments, and rubrics contained in the teaching materials section of the WPAF. This is true for full-time faculty and part-time faculty. In effect, initial efforts to improve student writing have remained a specific emphasis of the Division’s teaching culture for the past seven years. What began as conversations about improving writing proceeded to decisions to require increased writing in all Criminal Justice courses; collectively address it through the subject-related Faculty Cohort process in respect to writing assignments and strategies; create and administer common writing assessment instruments as devised by the Assessment Committee; survey faculty about student writing; survey alumni about how writing skills affect their professional capacity; make CRJ 194/190 a writing intensive course; and emphasized faculty participation in developing and encouraging writing in all RTP evaluations. By way of student competency, improving writing remains a core instructional value. Critical Thinking It is the collective intent of Division faculty to offer a higher level of baccalaureate instruction and graduate instruction than that which is found at other colleges and universities. The Criminal Justice Program is benefited by the number, diversity, interdisciplinary experience, training, and expertise of Division faculty, and this is reflected in the offerings of the curriculum. As such, it is the collective faculty view that instruction should develop, promote, and increase students’

22  

ability to think critically in terms of applying knowledge, decision making, problem solving, and ethical reasoning in an ever-increasing complex criminal justice environment. The reality of criminal justice professional practice is that the consequences of decisions often made during complicated and stressful problem solving scenarios echo for years. It is also inherent to the collective faculty view that many students, for various reasons, will not assume positions in professional criminal justice practice. Subsequently, the ability to think critically, as it is combined with the other aspects of a criminal justice education, gives student future strengths as citizens and, as such, strengthens families and communities. All Division faculty take the responsibility to positively influence and increase students’ ability to think critically as students progress through the curriculum to ultimately arrive at the capstone course. The identification of critical thinking as an assessment objective remains, along with writing, as a continuing assessment objective. The use of writing to develop and promote critical thinking is a natural fit. Critical Thinking assessment objectives, addressed through problem solving scenarios included in writing assignments are required in every Criminal Justice course. Since critical thinking assessment rubrics vary, no one standard for assessment has yet been employed. A companion objective in Criminal Justice courses is ethical reasoning. As with writing assessment, critical thinking is assessed through the cohort process, and it has also been assessed yearly since AY 2005/2006 as a component of the writing assessment instrument. Even though various strategies are in place to emphasize and assess critical thinking in all courses, two primary assessment instruments have been utilized. The writing assessment described above and administered to students in the capstone courses since 2005 included specific critical thinking assessment components. Additionally, in 2010/2011, an Assessment Committee survey of 377 alumni (to be discussed in more detail in later sections of this report) addressed critical thinking and writing as two of its assessment focuses. As with writing, emphasizing critical thinking has persisted as an important component of the Division’s teaching culture and of its efforts to deliver a higher quality criminal justice education. The emphasis on critical thinking has been influential in decisions to broaden the diversity of the curriculum in respect to supporting courses counting toward the major. The emphasis on critical thinking was instrumental in creating the Division’s capstone course, Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice, in which students are required to express diverse aspects of the curriculum to complicated problem solving scenarios, many of which involve ethical reasoning scenarios. This coincides with the larger assessment efforts to use students in the eight sections of capstone courses as a population to assess critical thinking and writing, as well as command of the knowledge base of the curriculum. Knowledge Acquisition As described earlier in this report, knowledge acquisition for assessment purposes began in 2005 when learning objectives for the curriculum were identified by subject-related cohorts of faculty. These learning objectives have been collectively addressed during the delivery of the course by all full-time faculty and part-time faculty teaching the same course. By 2006, all core courses and all elective courses had collectively identified learning objectives commonly addressed in all sections of the course. Some learning objectives within each course address the acquisition and

23  

application of knowledge and some address other cognitive skills. Each year faculty meet at least once to discuss the achievement and need for modification of the learning objectives. Changes in learning objectives proceed to the Curriculum Committee and Division Chair for review. In AY 2005/2006, the Assessment Committee began creating and discussing with faculty a knowledge-based multiple choice exam and subsequently a writing prompt that attempted to assess the knowledge possessed relative to the curriculum core. The exam, administered as a pre and post curriculum exam, was administered to newly admitted freshmen at orientation, in dedicated Criminal Justice courses, and in the Division’s capstone course. This multiple choice exam was last administered in Spring 2010. Since AY 2005/2006 the Division has utilized a curriculum matrix to assess where various knowledge-based learning objectives are addressed within the curriculum. Like writing and critical thinking, they are reviewed and assessed through the subject-related Cohort Committee and Assessment Committee review process. In 2009, the Assessment Committee began an intensive process to re-design and review with the faculty at-large a new knowledge-based assessment exam. This exam was subsequently administered as a pilot to two sections of the capstone course in the spring of 2010. The results of this exam were evaluated by the Assessment Committee and presented to the faculty at its Fall 2011 retreat. The Committee is still discussing the efficacy of administering such an exam within a Division with approximately 1800 majors. At this time, the subject-related exam is still under review with the primary concern being ‘scientific reliability.’ As with writing and critical thinking, the Division’s teaching culture is one that promotes broad based efforts to provide students with skills, knowledge, and abilities to successfully progress to leadership positions within a rapidly changing and increasingly complex criminal justice environment. The knowledge base provided by the Criminal Justice curriculum has also evolved over the last five years to provide students who don’t become criminal justice professionals, personal and intellectual skills and a higher level perspective of citizenship that is reflective of a high quality liberal education. The Division views its curriculum as a nationally recognized model for a higher level University criminal justice education. The continual assessment of the curriculum through subject-related faculty cohort discussions, Curriculum Committee Discussions, and Assessment Committee discussions has ensured that learning objectives and outcomes support and are supported by the curriculum. The findings produced by numerous assessment exams and instruments and processes to evaluate learning outcomes over the past seven years has produced insightful but not scientifically conclusive evidence of progress toward course and program objectives. The best evidence suggests that the Division’s efforts have been sustained and progressive and provide a good foundation from which to move forward. Advising In the sections that follow, we address two interrelated and mutually-reinforcing advising efforts at the program level, both of which have evolved into indispensable components of our internal culture, our commitment to student achievement, and our efforts at continual self-improvement, all of which, in turn, actualize, in the day-to-day, the Division’s values as articulated in our Mission Statement. The first element is the Division’s Pre-Law Advising Program; the second is the Division’s Advising Center.

24  

Pre-Law Advising Program Since 2002, the Division has served as the advising center for pre-law students from all majors across the campus. The Pre-Law Advising Program, supported by the Criminal Justice Advising Center, offers students the opportunity to meet individually with a faculty member who is a law school graduate and member of the bar. The program offers students a variety of services that equip them to prepare for the competitive law school application process. In addition to individual pre-law advising, the program offers the following services: free on-campus practice Law School Admission Test administrations every semester; the Sac State Fall Law Forum, which hosts over 30 law schools from across the United States; the Spring Law Day Celebration in partnership with the Sacramento County Superior Court; and a variety of annual workshops for current applicants and newly identified pre-law students. Professor Laurie Kubicek, Program founder and coordinator, authored a Pre-Law Advising Guide in 2005 (Rev. Ed. 2010) for university faculty that is shared with our Division pre-law advisors and across the campus with individuals from other campus departments who identify themselves as interested in assisting pre-law students. The Program is regarded by law school admissions professionals as one of the best in the United States. Through a campus listserv, Dr. Kubicek communicates regularly with over 1,500 identified pre-law students providing them with detailed information about Program offerings at Sac State and across Northern California. In a 2006 survey of Criminal Justice majors, 75% indicated a high level of interest in law, and 19% expressed that they have chosen the major to prepare them for graduate or law school in the future.

General Division Advising The Division of Criminal Justice Division operates a full-time Advising Center staffed by a Student Professional II (SSPII) as part of its cohort academic advising program. The Advising Center serves as a central location to answer general and specific advising questions; provide students with information and assistance regarding entrance and exit requirements; provide clarification of general university procedures; distribute handouts and forms; prepare students to efficiently proceed through the curriculum relative to course sequencing and requirements and, maintain data bases and reports relative to the progress of all majors and pre-majors. The Advising Center tracks majors’ progress and identifies students who have not met advising requirements then communications with these students via phone and/or SacLink email. The SSPII also manages the Division’s several internal and external scholarships which include distributing announcements monitoring application periods; collecting applications; and coordinating with the Scholarship Office regarding verification of selected applicants’ eligibility. The Advising Center’s SSP II, facilitates the disbursements of the internal scholarships in collaboration with the Division Chair. In addition to services provided by the Advising Center, the Division utilizes faculty cohort advising model which is administered through the Advising Center. Each semester all new majors are assigned with either the SSPII or one of two cohort faculty cohort assigned for that academic year. All new majors are required to meet for advising at least once during their first semester and as often as determined necessary by their advisors during subsequent semesters. Criminal Justice Major Advisors support students by helping them to develop and implement educational plans by providing them with accurate and timely information regarding educational

25  

opportunities, university and major requirements, policies, and procedures. Resources provided to our advisees include handouts such as major planning worksheets, semester planning guides and career guides. Individual student progress is monitored utilizing a database which allows advisors to update with advising notations each time they meet with an advisee. Major advisors also assist students with identifying university and college resources and support services to assist students with meeting their academic and career goals. Graduation Rate The Criminal Justice Division’s 4-year and 5-year graduation rates for First-time freshmen are significantly and consistently higher than the 4-year and 5-year rates for both the College and the University for students entering Sacramento State between 2002 and 2005 based on data from the University Fact Book. For Undergraduate transfer students, the Division’s 2-year and 3-year graduation rates for students entering between 2004 and 2008 are also been higher than both the College and University for each year (Table 14). This data is available in the Department Fact Book.

26  

Distribution of Advising Responsibilities among Faculty Members In Fall 2002, the Criminal Justice Division restructured its academic advising program utilizing a cohort advising model. Under this new model, each semester all incoming freshman, transfer and probationary students were assigned with one of four professors serving as cohort advisors for that academic year. The assigned cohort advisor served as advisor to the students in their cohorts for the remainder of the students’ career in the Criminal Justice program. In conjunction with this new advising program, that year the division opened an Advising Center and assigned a division staff person to serve as support to the new advising model. In 2003, the staff position in the Criminal Justice Advising Center was reviewed and approved for reclassification to Student Service Professional 1B based on the increased responsibilities for initial advising in that office. Since 2002, twenty-five of the division’s full-time faculty have served as cohort advisors, many choosing to serve multiple academic years. In 2008, the number of cohort faculty advisors per academic year was reduced from four to two. The reduction in the number of advisors led to the necessity to reduce the number of students assigned to each advisor so faculty cohort advisors were assigned with only new upper division majors. New lower division pre-majors were assigned with the SSPII in the Criminal Justice Advising Center for advising. Although some full-time faculty may choose not to serve as cohort advisors, all full-time faculty are expected to provide advising in career areas in which they have experience or background and are listed on the division’s Career Advising Guides. Proactive Advising Contact with Students to Assure Progress to Degree All new majors are informed by email notification and at our new student major orientations of the mandatory advising requirement during their first semester. Continuing majors are informed by email and during advising appointments of needed follow-up advising requirements. The division’s webpage has a link to the CRJ Advising Center which provides majors and non-majors with contact information for the Advising Center; links to advising handouts such as the major planning worksheet; roadmap to graduation and career advising guides; and any current news or

27  

upcoming deadlines. Currently the Advising Center’s webpage also includes information regarding our program impaction. SacLink emails, SacSend messages, postings on division bulletin boards and announcements in Criminal Justice courses are all methods that are utilized to inform students of important advising information and deadlines that may impact their academic progress in the major. Data provided by the University Fact book supports the fact that over the past ten years since the creation of a Division level Advising Center and the adoption of the cohort advising model, Criminal Justice majors have had a significant drop in Mean Number of Units to Degree falling steadily during that period beginning with academic year 2001/02 to 2010/11.

Program Roadmap to Curriculum Completion and Graduation Success The Division of Criminal Justice provides our majors with a four year Program Roadmap to Graduation giving a suggested guideline for a full-time student covering academic years from freshman to senior. The roadmap is available for at the Division’s website, Criminal Justice Advising Center and Division Office. It is also distributed during orientations and advising sessions. Use of Technology to Supplement and Strengthen Program Advising Effort The Criminal Justice Division has utilized an advising database since 2002. While the database is maintained and updated by the SSPII in the division’s Advising Center, all Criminal Justice cohort faculty advisors have access. Information on all newly admitted majors is inputted into the database. The information includes student name, ID number, and semester of admission to Sac State, catalog year, contact information, major advisor and program status (e.g. pre-major, major and minor.) The database record is also updated with student’s academic standing. Each individual student record has an area for dated notes allowing advisors to view all historical information on their advisees. This area is also used to add notations such as course requirements still needed and accepted substituted major courses from other universities. The program status option allows the division’s advisors to see when students have completed the degree requirements; if they have been academically dismissed or if they are no longer in our program. Multiple types of queries can be performed, such as a report showing all students admitted in Fall 2007 who have already received their degree or all pre-majors on probation in Spring 2011. The database is housed in a secured area of Sacfiles with access limited to the Division of

125

130

135

140

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

2010‐11

Mean # Units

Mean #Units

28  

Criminal Justice and the IT staff in the College of Health and Human Services. Below is a sample snapshot of a student record with all student personal information removed:

Conclusion to Section 3.3 In addition to the assessment goals, objectives, accomplishments, and roadmaps so far presented, the Division would like to emphasize additional Division adaptations and modifications as a result of its assessment efforts. The Division would also like to emphasize the degree of complexity with which the Division’s assessment practices have addressed the improvement of its students thinking and reasoning ability. Through the Division’s assessment culture, the Division has modified and enhanced its curriculum, put in place course road-mapping and sequencing guidelines, and backed them up with an advising structure that tracks its approximately 2000 majors individually. Significant improvements in time to graduation and graduation rates are clearly evident as a result of this. Every course in the curriculum has consistent learning objectives across multi-section courses which are reviewed at least once annually by discipline-related cohorts. The student experience is importantly associated with the dedication to specified learning objectives expressed in every syllabus for every course in the curriculum. Every course has a writing requirement and most courses have multiple ones in support of the overall goal of improving student writing. Every writing assignment is accompanied by an assessment rubric that is required for every RTP evaluation. Every course emphasizes critical thinking and ethical reasoning as part of the Division’s overall assessment effort. Writing, critical thinking, and knowledge acquisition are assessed in all sections of the Capstone course by writing exams prepared and evaluated by the Assessment Committee. The Division further utilizes a curriculum matrix charting process to identify where and how assessment objectives are addressed in the curriculum. Yearly assessment reports for more than 10 years articulate an accomplished trajectory.

29  

Section 3.4 How will we utilize assessment findings to advance specified curricular outcomes and promote ongoing faculty development? Clearly, the efforts discussed throughout Section 3.3 above reflect the evolving Division culture as one that has acquired a collective assessment perspective. This perspective, now reflected by a large and diverse interdisciplinary faculty body, has produced consistent progress to regularly identify, achieve, and assess the quality and appropriateness of learning outcomes used to inform and align curricular decisions, and related faculty professional development. Evidence of this trajectory is present in the Division’s yearly reports and projects, learning objectives for syllabi, subject-related faculty cohort discussions, advising and course mapping, curriculum restructuring, and emphasis in all RTP evaluations. In this Section, we answer question 4 of our Self-Study by first discussing two key current assessment efforts: 1) The development of a Division table that is currently in use to help inform and plot the next five-year assessment course as it relates to the Division achieving the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals; and 2) The identification of, through a formative process, another new, long-term assessment plan. We then further discuss additional elements of the in-depth qualitative survey discussed in Section 3.2 that focus on suggestions Criminal Justice faculty members made concerning issues of faculty development. Current and Future Assessment Assessment efforts this year, AY 11/12, have worked in concert with this Self-Study and reflect a deeper and more complex process to integrate the Division’s teaching values with the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals and is refining its assessment roadmap to ensure formative integration of periodic findings. Assessment efforts are directed at describing in greater detail how students demonstrate learning, emphasizing rubrics and distinctions in performance at various levels. Advising, course road-mapping, and assessment efforts clearly identify and target increasing levels of student proficiency. Further, the Division has utilized its Capstone course to test, examine, and collect evidence of student achievement of intended learning outcomes and over-all command of the curriculum. These efforts are aligned with achieving not only the Division’s assessment goals, but the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals; these efforts have produced a multi-year assessment plan and timetable for revisions. For example, the Division’s Assessment Committee has developed the table below during AY 11/12, which is currently in use to help inform and plot the next five-year assessment course as it relates to the Division achieving the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals.

30  

Core Criminal Justice Courses/ Baccalaureate & Program Learning

Goals

Intellectual & Practical Skills (BLG 3)

Personal & Social Responsibility (BLG

4)

Integrative Learning (BLG 5)

Critical Thinking/ Problem Solving

Written Communi

cation

Ethical Reasoni

ng

Lifelong Learning

Integrative & Applied Learning

CRJ 1: Intro to CJ & Society + + + + CRJ 2: Law of Crimes + + + + CRJ 4: General Investigation Techniques

+ + + +

CRJ 5: Communities & the CJS + + + + CRJ 101: Research Methods ++ ++ ++ ++ + CRJ 102: Crime & Punishment ++ ++ ++ ++ + CRJ 121: Structure & Function of U.S. Courts

++ ++ ++ ++ ++

CRJ 123: Law of Arrest, Search & Seizure

++ ++ ++ ++ ++

CRJ 130: Fundamentals of Corrections

++ ++ ++ ++ ++

CRJ 141: Police & Society ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ CRJ 160: Justice & Public Safety Admin.

++ ++ ++ ++ ++

CRJ 190: Contemporary Issues in CJ

+++ +++ +++ +++ +++

CRJ 200 series = Beginning Graduate Courses

+++ +++ +++ +++ +++

CRJ 500 series = Advanced Graduate Courses

++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++

+ = intro level of skill, value or integration/application; ++ = intro to mid; +++ = mid to advanced; ++++ = advanced to mastery

In addition, 5 members of the Assessment Committee, all of whom developed the table above, have been accepted into the University’s Program Assessment Faculty Learning Community during AY 11/12 and into AY 12/13. Through their current work in this Faculty Learning Community, they have created Division value rubrics relating to the University Baccalaureate Learning Goals. The Division plans to submit this year’s report of assessment progress regardless of the fact that it has been made institutionally known that the IPP Report on Assessment could suffice for this year’s submissions. As part of its assessment driven, current Self-Study, the Division is also about to identify, through a formative process, another new, long-term assessment plan. A draft version of this plan is included below.

31  

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SACRAMENTO Division of Criminal Justice

Draft Program Assessment Plan

for Long-Term Data Collection and Systematic Response

(May, 2012)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 New data collected

Critical Thinking

& Problem Solving

Ethical Reasoning & Lifelong Learning

Communication (Written + Oral &/or

Interpersonal)

Efficiency Indicators & Long-Term

Impacts

Integration/ Application of skills and

values & Content

Critical Thinking &

Problem Solving

Ethical Reasoning & Lifelong Learning

Data responded to

Critical Thinking

& Problem Solving

Ethical Reasoning &

Lifelong Learning

Communication Efficiency Indicators & Long-Term

Impacts

Integration & Content

Critical Thinking

& Problem Solving

Intellectual Skills = Critical Thinking & Problem Solving; Communication (written + oral and/or interpersonal) Personal and Social Values = Ethical Reasoning & Lifelong Learning Efficiency Indicators & Long-Term Educational Impacts = e.g., advising, time to graduation, alumni survey Integration & Content = Capacity to apply skills, values and disciplinary knowledge in discipline related settings (e.g., leadership, decision-making, problem solving, ethical reasoning, perspective-taking) Faculty Development In addition to the in-process assessment efforts described above, the Division also sought to answer our final Self-Study question through in-depth, open-ended qualitative means by asking all full-time faculty members to respond, along with their responses to Section 3.2 above, to the following request: Please share any specific Division-level practices that you believe could potentially promote faculty development in the near future. Again, as in Section 3.2, our goal for this second request was also reflective and exploratory in order to produce in-depth, qualitative narratives that could inform current and future discussions concerning collective pedagogical philosophies, goals, and outcomes. And, from the nearly fifty pages of reflections the faculty produced in response to these two requests, one primary faculty desire emerged: Across the board, Criminal Justice faculty believe in strengthening Division culture, cohesiveness, and identity via two main avenues: 1) activities that would depend primarily on university funding (e.g., conference support, reduction of class sizes, graduate teaching assistants, reduced teaching loads for junior faculty); and 2) activities that might seek additional funding, but would be primarily Division-lead (e.g., colloquia, brown bags, convocations, guest speakers, learning communities, shared research agendas). For example, Professor Sue Escobar would like to see more efforts being placed on developing a brown bag lunch series where faculty could meet to discuss a variety of issues they face in terms of professional development. This could include topics/issues such as: developing innovative or different teaching strategies; the use of technology in the classroom; online education/SacCT; research and scholarly activities (how to write a grant proposal); academic advising, the role of

32  

the faculty member; or developing leadership skills (for those interested in moving into positions of leadership either within the Division or in other departments around campus). Similarly, Professor Ricky Gutierrez would like to see Division faculty come together and share research agendas and funding possibilities. He believes that periodic research symposiums will allow interested faculty and students to develop strategies that allow the integration of research into our teaching, with students becoming an integral component in this process. Likewise, Professor Jennie Singer would like to see faculty learning communities who could get together monthly and communicate ideas; watch each other teach in the classroom and give constructive criticism; share teaching techniques; and generally be supportive of each other. Ideally, Dr. Singer would first like to have a paid seminar with a talented facilitator who could help the Division define each other as faculty members. Finally, Professor Lynette Lee would like to hear from experts who have been working in the area of adult learning and development in order to share some of the theory and research about what we know in regards to college student learning processes to interested faculty. This conversation about faculty development that Division faculty have been engaged in during the past year has had an almost immediate impact. A committee was formed in the fall of 2011, lead by Dr. Ernest Uwazie, and has planned a convocation for September 25, 2012. The goal of the convocation is to promote robust scholarly and policy exchanges between distinguished scholars and key policy makers on cutting edge research or significant contemporary issues of law and justice. The convocation theme is “The Future of Justice: Building Leaders for a Global Community.” The convocation format will feature a keynote address and will include opportunities for our CRJ students to engage with researchers and policy makers on issues affecting the field of criminal justice—likely in a question-and-answer format. Conclusion to Section 3.4 Integral to this cycle’s Self-Study was the Division’s desire to integrate assessment efforts and findings with the values that the faculty-at-large emphasize as important components of student development. Accompanying this desire was the study’s examination of faculty teaching practices that are utilized to promote and realize these values as curricular outcomes. The results from these findings will be further infused into the Division’s roadmap for assessment efforts over the next five years. As the tables above illustrate, the values identified in this study are accompanied by an assessment process to promote, evaluate, measure, modify, and re-direct them. Central to this is the Division’s intent to use the assessment process and the faculty assessment culture to realize higher and deeper levels of student learning addressed in the tables above.

33  

2012 Self-Study Conclusion The Division of Criminal Justice plays a central role in supporting the University’s position as a major, regional comprehensive University. Residing in the State’s capital, where all California criminal justice policy originates, the Division’s quality curriculum and high level of faculty expertise, numerous associations with the professional community, and large number of alumni in the professional ranks, all combine to play an important role in advancing the University’s mission. In conclusion, and in respect to curriculum rigor, assessment, faculty workload, advising, scheduling efficiency, time to and rate of graduation, and overall operating efficiency that includes cost assessment, the Division sustains the quality of its program with the optimization of limited available resources. In terms of these variables, the Division’s output is seldom achieved by other academic units. The Division’s optimization of shrinking resources and overall effectiveness is revealed consistently by internal assessments and external assessments. The Division has also excelled in collectively promoting quality teaching and learning as a Division ethic. This has occurred in spite of the Division’s high student-to-faculty ratio, loss of faculty positions, and little to no financial support for faculty development. Subsequently, Division faculty are internally promoting development through shared research, brown bag colloquia, hosting its first public convocation, actively participating in academic and professional community relationships, and collaborating on scholarship and assessment practices. Through its impacted program status the Division is working to maintain its innovative advising processes, high retention and graduation rates, workload, and quality of instruction. Division faculty have continued an aggressive agenda of scholarly presentation even in the absence of University support. The Division as a whole is to be complimented for its continual development of its program, its assessment efforts, and its contributions to achieving the University’s mission despite a lack of positive incentives; and for taking control of its circumstances through the impaction process. The degree to which the Division can sustain these efforts without more significant University support is uncertain. Although the Division’s contributions of providing graduates to the professional community are large and significant, many graduates do not choose, or cannot qualify for positions with the professional community. Wanting to embark on a criminal justice educational path often accompanies a sense of calling through family history, life experience, and the ideal to promote a safer and more just world. Division faculty view a Criminal Justice student’s foundational educational experience as one that prepares students not only in terms of professional potential, but also in terms of contributing to families and communities by using acquired knowledge and well-reasoned principles of justice to actively, and smartly engage a rapidly changing and complex world. The Division’s desire to examine its value structure through the focus of this study accompanies its concern for preparing criminal justice students with learning, skills, leadership potential, and values that prepare them for continued learning, personal development, and a successful professional life. Additionally, this study focus allowed the Division, to a greater degree than previously realized, to identify, integrate, and align its assessment efforts with those values and teaching strategies described as important by individual faculty members.

34  

This process has brought together the Division’s mission, values, teaching strategies, and assessment planning to pursue a clearer vision of present and future student and faculty development. The Division exists as a large academic unit with a large and diverse faculty body. As such, this study serves to significantly focus collective efforts toward achieving those values embodied within the Division’s Mission Statement. It is anticipated that the learning processes and outcomes produced by this study will continue as an important model and building block for future Division development, change, and progress.