Philosophy M.A. - Northern Illinois University3. Knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology by...

Philosophy M.A.

Assessment Plan – 1

College of Liberal Arts & Sciences

Department of Philosophy

Philosophy

M.A.

August 16, 2014

David J. Buller, Chair

Philosophy M.A.


1. Student Learning Outcomes

Passages in boldface are designed to be the public face of the assessment plan, to be used on the

Office of Assessment Services clearinghouse web page

(http://www.niu.edu/assessment/clearinghouse/outcomes/index.shtml).

Graduates of the M.A. program will be prepared for:

I. Entry into a nationally ranked Ph.D. program in philosophy

II. A position teaching philosophy in a community college

Graduates will exhibit preparation for these career tracks by demonstrating:

1. Proficiency in formal logic by completing assignments in which they:

a. Identify the metalogical relationships among the concepts of validity, consistency,

logical truth, and logical equivalence

b. Accurately perform truth-functional computations to identify logical properties of

formulas in propositional logic

c. Symbolize the logical form of English sentences expressing truth-functional compounds,

monadic quantification, polyadic quantification with and without identity, and

numerical quantity

d. Construct derivations (by natural deduction) to prove validity in propositional logic,

logical truth in propositional logic, validity in first-order predicate logic, and validity in

first-order predicate logic with identity

e. Construct truth trees to identify the logical properties of formulas and sets of formulas

in propositional logic, first-order predicate logic, and first-order predicate logic with

identity

f. Construct interpretations to identify logical properties of formulas and sets of formulas

in first-order predicate logic and first-order predicate logic with identity

2. Proficiency in philosophical writing by composing essays that:

a. Provide strong and cogent arguments in support of philosophical theses

b. Critically engage opposing views and arguments

c. Display independent or creative thought

3. Knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology by writing essays that:

a. Demonstrate knowledge of an appropriate body of relevant literature in metaphysics

and epistemology

b. Provide clear, accurate, and thorough explanations of the philosophical views discussed

4. Knowledge of ethics and social/political philosophy by writing essays that:

a. Demonstrate knowledge of an appropriate body of relevant literature in ethics and

social/political philosophy


Philosophy M.A.


5. Knowledge of the related areas of philosophy of science, philosophy of language, and

philosophy of mind by writing essays that:

a. Demonstrate knowledge of an appropriate body of relevant literature in the

philosophies of science, language, and mind


6. Knowledge of a period, movement, or major figure in the history of philosophy by

writing essays that:

a. Demonstrate knowledge of an appropriate body of relevant literature of the period,

movement, or figure


7. In-depth knowledge of one major area of contemporary philosophy by writing

comprehensive examination essays on a diverse range of topics in the area that:

a. Demonstrate understanding of the central philosophical issues in the area and their

significance

b. Demonstrate mastery of the important philosophical views and arguments concerning

these issues and how they relate to one another

c. Identify proponents (authors and their works) of these views and arguments

Philosophy M.A.


2. Curriculum Map

Course

Student Learning Outcome

1. Proficiency

in formal

logic

2. Proficiency in

philosophical

writing

Knowledge of: 7. In-depth

knowledge of

one major area of

contemporary

philosophy

3. Metaphysics

and

epistemology

4. Ethics and

social/political

philosophy

5. Philosophies

of science,

language,

and mind

6. History of

philosophy

PHIL 505 P

PHIL 502 P P D

PHIL 504 P P D

PHIL 510 P P D

PHIL 520 P P

PHIL 521 P P

PHIL 523 P P

PHIL 526 P P

PHIL 527 P P

PHIL 528 P P

PHIL 529 P P D

PHIL 530 P P D

PHIL 550 P P D

PHIL 561 P P D

PHIL 564 P P D

PHIL 570 P P D

PHIL 602 P P D

PHIL 604 P P D

Philosophy M.A.


Course


1. Proficiency

in formal

logic

2. Proficiency in

philosophical

writing

Knowledge of: 7. In-depth

knowledge of

one major area of

contemporary

philosophy

3. Metaphysics

and

epistemology

4. Ethics and

social/political

philosophy

5. Philosophies

of science,

language,

and mind

6. History of

philosophy

PHIL 611 P P D

PHIL 612 P P D

PHIL 631 P P D

PHIL 642 P P D

PHIL 651 P P D

PHIL 660 P P D

PHIL 663 P P D

Note. Course supports the outcome at the B=beginning, D=developing, or P=proficient level.

Philosophy M.A.


3. Assessment Methods

Assessment Method


1.

Proficiency

in formal

logic

2.

Proficiency in

philosophical

writing

3.

Knowledge of

metaphysics

and

epistemology

4.

Knowledge of

ethics and

social/political

philosophy

5.

Knowledge

of phil. of

science,

language,

and mind

6.

Knowledge

of history

of

philosophy

7.

In-depth

knowledge of

one major area

of contemporary

philosophy

Examinations in PHIL 505 S, D

Essays written in PHIL

510, 570, 611, and 612 S, D S, D

F


530, 550, 631, 642, and 651 S, D S, D

F


502, 504, 561, 564, 602, 604,

660, and 663

S, D S, D

F


520, 521, 523, 526, 527, 528,

and 529

S, D

S, D F

Comprehensive

Examination

S, D

Placement data (external) S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I

Alumni survey S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I S, I

Note. F=formative assessment, S=summative assessment, D=direct assessment, and I=indirect assessment

Philosophy M.A.


Explanation of Assessment Methods

For each of the assessment methods listed in the tables below, on each performance outcome listed in the column entitled

“Description,” student performance is assigned one of the following three scores:

0 = Does not meet expectation in any significant respect

1 = Partially meets expectation, but does not satisfy expectation for master’s-level performance

2 = Meets expectation for master’s-level performance

As this scoring system implies, the student-level target for each performance outcome is a score of “2.”

Also, for each assessment method listed in the tables below, the program-level target is an average score, among program graduates

collectively, of 1.75 on each performance outcome. An average score of 1.75 on each outcome mathematically guarantees that at

least 75% of program graduates have met expectation for baccalaureate-level performance (received a “2” for their performance). In

fact, assuming that all graduates receive only a “1” or a “2,” an average of 1.mn indicates that mn% of graduates received a score of

“2.” Of course, not all graduates receive scores of “1” or “2”; some receive scores of “0” on a performance outcome. Accordingly, the

percentage of graduates who meet the department’s expectation on each performance outcome is virtually always greater than mn%

when the average is 1.mn. Thus, while the program-level target ensures that at least 75% of all graduates achieve the student-level

target, which is what the department would like to see, tracking the average score of program graduates collectively is simpler,

hence more efficient, than counting the number of graduates who achieve the student-level target.

Philosophy M.A.


Assessment

Method

Explanation

Description

Student-Level

Target a

Program-Level

Target b

When Data Will

be Collected

Person

Responsible

Examinations in

PHIL 505

Students demonstrate proficiency in formal

logic by completing assignments in which

they:

a. Identify the metalogical relationships

among the concepts of validity,

consistency, logical truth, and logical

equivalence

b. Accurately perform truth-functional

computations to identify logical

properties of formulas in propositional

logic

c. Symbolize the logical form of English

sentences expressing truth-functional

compounds, monadic quantification,

polyadic quantification with and

without identity, and numerical

quantity

d. Construct derivations (by natural

deduction) to prove validity in

propositional logic, logical truth in

propositional logic, validity in first-

order predicate logic, and validity in

first-order predicate logic with identity

e. Construct truth trees to identify the

logical properties of formulas and sets

of formulas in propositional logic, first-

order predicate logic, and first-order

predicate logic with identity

f. Construct interpretations to identify

logical properties of formulas and sets

of formulas in first-order predicate logic

with and without identity

A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the six

performance

criteria on the

attached rubric

(Appendix A).

An average score,

among program

graduates

collectively, of 1.75

on each of the six

performance criteria

on the rubric.

Every fall

semester

Instructor of

PHIL 505

Philosophy M.A.


Assessment

Method

Explanation

Description

Student-Level

Target a

Program-Level

Target b

When Data Will

be Collected

Person

Responsible

Essays written in

all graduate

courses that

fulfill the area

requirements for

the M.A.

Students demonstrate proficiency

in philosophical writing by

composing essays that:

a. Provide strong and cogent

arguments in support of

philosophical theses

b. Critically engage opposing

views and arguments

c. Display independent or

creative thought

A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the three

performance

criteria

numbered 3, 4,

and 5 on the

attached rubric

(Appendix B).

An average score,

among program

graduates


on each of the three


on the rubric (on the

two highest-scoring

essays submitted).

Every semester All

instructors of

graduate

courses that

fulfill area

requirements

for the M.A.

Essays written in

PHIL 510, PHIL

570, PHIL 611,

and PHIL 612

Students demonstrate knowledge

of metaphysics and epistemology

by writing essays that:

a. Demonstrate knowledge of an

appropriate body of relevant

literature in metaphysics and

epistemology

b. Provide clear, accurate, and

thorough explanations of the

philosophical views discussed

A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the two

performance

criteria

numbered 1 and

2 on the attached

rubric

(Appendix B).

An average score,

among program

graduates


on each of the two



two highest-scoring

essays submitted).

Every semester

that one of the

four courses

listed to the left

is taught

(typically every

semester)

All

instructors of

the four

courses listed

to the left

Philosophy M.A.


Assessment

Method

Explanation

Description

Student-Level

Target a

Program-Level

Target b

When Data Will

be Collected

Person

Responsible

Essays written in

PHIL 530, PHIL

550, PHIL 631,

PHIL 642, and

PHIL 651


of ethics and social/political

philosophy by writing essays that:



literature in ethics and social/

political philosophy




A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the two

performance

criteria

numbered 1 and

2 on the attached

rubric

(Appendix B).

An average score,

among program

graduates


on each of the two



two highest-scoring

essays submitted).

Every semester

that one of the

five courses

listed to the left

is taught

(typically every

semester)

All

instructors of

the five

courses listed

to the left

Essays written in

PHIL 502, PHIL

504, PHIL 561,

PHIL 564, PHIL

602, PHIL 604,

PHIL 660, and

PHIL 663


of the related areas of philosophy

of science, philosophy of language,

and philosophy of mind by writing

essays that:



literature in the philosophies of

science, language, and mind




A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the two

performance

criteria

numbered 1 and

2 on the attached

rubric

(Appendix B).

An average score,

among program

graduates


on each of the two



two highest-scoring

essays submitted).

Every semester

that one of the

eight courses

listed to the left

is taught

(typically every

semester)

All

instructors of

the eight

courses listed

to the left

Philosophy M.A.


Assessment

Method

Explanation

Description

Student-Level

Target a

Program-Level

Target b

When Data Will

be Collected

Person

Responsible

Essays written in

PHIL 520, PHIL

521, PHIL 523,

PHIL 526, PHIL

527, PHIL 528,

and PHIL 529


of a period, movement, or major

figure in the history of philosophy

by writing essays that:



literature of the period,

movement, or figure




A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the two

performance

criteria

numbered 1 and

2 on the attached

rubric

(Appendix B).

An average score,

among program

graduates


on each of the two



highest-scoring essay

submitted, since only

one course in this

area is required).

Every semester

that one of the

seven courses

listed to the left

is taught

(typically once

every year)

All

instructors of

the seven

courses listed

to the left

Philosophy M.A.


Assessment

Method

Explanation

Description

Student-Level

Target a

Program-Level

Target b

When Data Will

be Collected

Person

Responsible

Comprehensive

Examination

Students demonstrate in-depth

knowledge of one major area of

contemporary philosophy by

writing comprehensive

examination essays on a diverse

range of topics in the area that:

a. Demonstrate understanding of

the central philosophical issues

in the area and their significance

b. Demonstrate mastery of the

important philosophical views

and arguments concerning these

issues and how they relate to

one another

c. Identify proponents (authors

and their works) of these views

and arguments

A score of 2

(= “meets

expectation”) on

each of the three

performance

criteria on the

attached rubric

(Appendix C).

An average score,

among program

graduates


on each of the three


on the rubric.

Every semester Members of

the grading

committees of

each comp.

exam

Note. a Student-level target is the score or performance an individual student must demonstrate to say the student met the student

learning outcome. b Program-level target is expressed as the average of all program graduates.

Course:Semester:Faculty Name:

Rubric Scores0 = Does not meet expectation in any significant respect1 = Partially meets expectation, but does not satisfy expectation for master's-level performance2 = Meets expectation for master's-level performance

PHIL 505, Intermediate Logic

Student Name 1. Identif

ies t

he meta

logic

al re

latio

nship

s

among t

he conce

pts o

f vali

dity, c

onsiste

ncy,

logic

al tr

uth, a

nd logic

al equiva

lence

2. Acc

urate

ly perfo

rms t

ruth

-funct

ional

com

putatio

ns to id

entify l

ogical

pro

perties o

f

form

ulas i

n pro

positio

nal lo

gic

3. Sym

bolizes t

he logic

al fo

rm o

f Engli

sh

sente

nces e

xpre

ssin

g:

a. Tru

th-fu

nctio

nal co

mpounds

b. Monad

ic quan

tifica

tion

c. Polya

dic quan

tifica

tion w

ith an

d with

out

identit

y

d. Num

erical

quantit

y (“a

t least

n,”

“at m

ost

n,” “e

xact

ly n,”

and “t

he x”)

4. Const

ruct

s deriv

atio

ns (by n

atura

l

deductio

n) to p

rove

:

a. V

alidity

/conse

quence in

pro

positio

nal lo

gic

b. Lo

gical

truth

in p

roposit

ional

logic

c. V

alidity

/conse

quence in

firs

t-ord

er

predica

te lo

gic

d. Vali

dity/c

onsequence

in fi

rst-o

rder

predica

te lo

gic w

ith id

entity

5. Const

ruct

s tru

th tr

ees to id

entify t

he logic

al

properti

es of f

ormulas

and se

ts o

f form

ulas i

n:

a. P

roposit

ional

logic

b. Firs

t-ord

er pre

dicate

logic

c. Fir

st-o

rder p

redica

te lo

gic w

ith id

entity

6. Const

ruct

s inte

rpre

tatio

ns to id

entify l

ogical

properti

es of f

ormulas

and se

ts o

f form

ulas i

n:

a. Fi

rst-o

rder p

redica

te lo

gic

b. Firs

t-ord

er pre

dicate

logic

with

identit

y

Overa

ll Cours

e Gra

de

Appendix A

Assessment Plan - 13

Course:Semester:Faculty Name:


Student Name1. D

emonst

rate

s know

ledge

of a

n

appropria

te b

ody of r

eleva

nt lite

ratu

re

2. Pro

vides c

lear,

accu

rate

, and th

orough

explan

ations o

f the vi

ews d

iscuss

ed

3. Pro

vides s

trong a

nd coge

nt arg

uments

in su

pport of a

philo

sophica

l thesis

4. Crit

ically

enga

ges o

pposing v

iew

s and

argum

ents

5. Disp

lays

independent o

r cre

ative

though

t

Overa

ll Cours

e Gra

de

Appendix B


Exam:Semester:Faculty Name:

P = PassF = Fail

GradesPH = Pass with Honors


Student ID Letter 1. Dem

onstra

tes u

ndersta

nding o

f the ce

ntral

philoso

phical is

sues i

n the ar

ea and th

eir

signifi

cance

2. Dem

onstra

tes m

aste

ry o

f the im

portant

philoso

phical v

iews a

nd argu

ments

conce

rnin

g

these

issu

es and h

ow they r

elate

to o

ne

anoth

er

3. Identif

ies p

roponents

(auth

ors an

d their

work

s) of t

hese vi

ews and ar

gum

ents

Overa

ll Exa

m G

rade

Appendix C


Philosophy M.A. - Northern Illinois University3. Knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology by...

Documents

Transcript of Philosophy M.A. - Northern Illinois University3. Knowledge of metaphysics and epistemology by...