RR3 Capstone COVER - Sc

Cite as:

Padgett, R. D., & Kilgo, C. A. (2012). 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences: Institutional-level data on the culminating experience (Research Reports on College Transitions No. 3). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Copyright © 2012 University of South Carolina. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be repro-duced or copied in any form, by any means, without written permission of the University of South Carolina.

The First-Year Experience® is a service mark of the University of South Carolina. A license may be granted upon written request to use the term “The First-Year Experience.” This license is not transferable without written approval of the University of South Carolina.

Production Staff for the National Resource Center:Project Editor Toni Vakos, EditorDesign and Production Elizabeth Howell, Graphic Artist

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Padgett, Ryan D. 2011 national survey of senior capstone experiences : institutional-level data on the culminating experi-ence / Ryan D. Padgett, Cindy A. Kilgo. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-889271-86-61. College seniors--United States. 2. Educational surveys--United States. I. Kilgo, Cindy A. II. Title. III. Title: National survey of senior capstone experiences. LA229.P32 2012 378.1’98--dc23 2012028535

iii

Contents

List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1

Findings From the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences .....................7

Implications for Practice and Research ....................................................................................... 27

Appendix A: Survey Methodology ............................................................................................. 31

Appendix B: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................... 33

Appendix C: Respondents to the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences .................................................................................................... 49

Appendix D: Comprehensive Frequency Distribution Tables for the2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences ........................................................ 53

All Responses by Institutional Control and Class Size .......................................... 54All Responses by Capstone Type .................................................................................. 76

References ............................................................................................................................................ 95

About the Authors ............................................................................................................................ 97

List of Figures and Tables

FiguresFigure 1 Breakdown of Seniors Enrolled or Participating in a

Senior Capstone Experience(s) .............................................................................................. 5

Figure 2 Percentage of Discrete Capstone Types Across Institutions................................................. 8

Figure 3 Percentage of Sections Incorporating an Online Component ..........................................22

TablesTable 1 Type of Senior Seminar or Capstone Course........................................................................ 3

Table 2 Institutions With Senior Capstone Experiences .................................................................. 5

Table 3 Capstone Experience With the Highest Total Senior Enrollment at Each Responding Institution ....................................................................... 9

Table 4 Capstone Experience With the Highest Total Senior Enrollment by Institutional Control .......................................................................................................... 9

Table 5 Most Important Capstone Objectives by Institutional Control .......................................13

Table 6 Most Important Objectives by Capstone Type ...................................................................14

Table 7 Comparison of Commonly Reported Course or Capstone Objectives and Topics .........15

Table 8 Most Important Capstone Topics by Institutional Control .............................................16

Table 9 Most Important Topics by Capstone Type ..........................................................................17

Table 10 Incorporation of Good Practices by Institutional Control ................................................18

Table 11 Most Commonly Reported Good Practices by Capstone Type .........................................19

Table 12 Primary Instructor by Control and Capstone Type ..........................................................21

Table 13 Senior Capstone Experience Assessment Methods ............................................................23

Table A.1 Percentage of Primary and Discrete Project-Based Experiences .....................................10

Table A.2 Percentage of Senior Capstone Experiences at Two-Year Institutions ............................24

v

11

Introduction

Gardner, Van der Veer, and Associates (1998) assert that the undergraduate experience is composed of two critical transition periods: the first year and the senior year. Whereas there is no shortage of empirical research examining the impact of the first year of college (e.g., Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005), the senior-year experience has received little attention. The modest empirical evidence on the senior year that does exist primarily focuses on the senior-year transition, specifically the capstone experience (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Gardner et al., 1998; Henscheid, 2000). As a rationale for examining the senior-year experience, Gardner and Van der Veer (1998) offered five points of interest:

Seniors have invested time and effort during their tenure in undergraduate studies and, there-fore, serve as a captive audience.

Seniors have high expectations for the future as a result of their time and effort. The transition issues faced by senior students varies from that of other student populations. The senior year offers the last chance to instill in undergraduates the competencies institutions

desire them to achieve. Seniors will eventually become the institutions’ alumni benefactors.

To more readily assist seniors with this final undergraduate transition, Gardner et al. (1998) proposed additional research on institutional-level programming, including linking major curricu-lum to general education or liberal arts curriculum; leadership development; career development; and preparation for future employment, graduate school, life after college, and alumni status. Us-ing conference program proceedings from four national conferences on the senior-year experience, Cuseo (1998) identified a series of programming themes similar to Gardner et al.’s, including (a) a more comprehensive understanding of general education, (b) connections between general education and academic-major course work, (c) a more comprehensive understanding of major course work, and (d) connections between academic-major course work and career development. In addition, Cuseo (1998) noted the senior year serves as the final opportunity for the institution to provide meaningful support to students, and, therefore, stressed the importance of this type of institutional-level programming during the senior year.

Defining Senior Capstone ExperiencesOver the past several decades, senior capstone experiences have been defined in a variety of ways

(see Gardner et al., 1998; Levine, 1978). These definitions tend to categorize the senior capstone into two types of experiences: curricular (course-based) and cocurricular (project-based). Within each categorical type, researchers and practitioners have created additional definitions and variations of senior capstones (e.g., undergraduate research, thesis, comprehensive examination, internship,

2 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences

certification). These additional types have expanded the scope in which senior capstones are delivered. In fact, Brownell and Swaner’s (2010) meta-analysis of research on senior capstones illustrated the lack of a universal definition for senior capstone experiences.

The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998) released a report urging research universities to consider, in addition to eight other recommenda-tions, providing a culminating experience for undergraduate students. Within this report, the Boyer Commission described the ideal experience as a small group of peers working collaboratively with a faculty mentor, ideally the academic major advisor, to complete a major project. Specifically, the Boyer Commission identified preparation for graduate study or entry into the workforce as the major goal of the culminating senior capstone experience.

Differing slightly from the Boyer Commission, Gardner et al. (1998) defined capstone experiences as “summative curricular approaches such as courses synthesizing all of the content to date within a particular major” (p. 15). However, they asserted this capstone experience may include a major project, research thesis, or internship. Further, Levine (1998) described three types of capstone experiences: (a) course-based senior seminar, (b) comprehensive exams, and (c) senior thesis or major project. He identified course-based senior seminars as discipline-based, interdisciplinary, or theme-based seminars taught by a diverse array of individuals, from faculty to off-campus professionals. While Levine did not delve deeply into comprehensive exams as a senior capstone experience, he posited exams have positive and negative attributes and are the least frequent form of capstone experience compared to the most common type—the senior thesis or major project—as an independent project under the supervision of a faculty mentor.

The project as a central feature of a senior capstone experience emerged when the Asso-ciation of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) defined capstone experience as a major project—department-based or interdisciplinary. These experiences included “a research paper, a performance, a portfolio of ‘best work,’ or an exhibit of artwork” (Kuh, 2008, p. 11) that can be within an academic department or general education. Rowles, Koch, Hundley, and Hamilton (2004) described both course-based and project-based capstone experiences when they outlined three spe-cific types of senior capstones implemented at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI): “mountaintops” (i.e., multidisciplinary), “magnets” (i.e., discipline-based), and “mandates” (i.e., linked to certification or external licensure) (p. 13). While mountaintops and magnets were primarily discipline-based or interdisciplinary courses, IUPUI encouraged the integration of project-based components (e.g., internships, service-learning, portfolios) within the formal course-based capstone. This model supports Levine’s (1998) definition of capstone experiences as a more project-based initiative.

Research and Literature Review on Senior Capstone ExperiencesAlthough senior capstone experiences are identified as a high-impact practice by AAC&U

(Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Kuh, 2008), a surprising dearth of research exists regarding these expe-riences at the student, institutional, and programmatic levels. In particular, Brownell and Swaner’s (2010) meta-analysis on the impact of senior capstone experiences on student learning outcomes uncovered little empirical evidence validating the often perceived positive benefits associated with participation. The researchers found limited general effects of participation in a capstone course or project on applying and integrating knowledge, no empirical evidence on the impact capstones have on underserved student populations, and limited and isolated empirical evidence linked to student learning and developmental outcomes. Nonetheless, two notable exceptions were found, both from data obtained from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Measuring the relationship between senior culminating experiences and clusters of effective educational practices, Kuh (2008)

identified significant positive relationships between participation in the culminating experience and students’ self-reported level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, and supportive campus environment. Data from the NSSE administered in 2009, which included additional survey items on senior culminating experiences, provided additional evidence of the benefits of student participation in senior capstone courses. Students reported the senior cul-minating experience contributed to their growth in critical and analytical thinking skills, ability to make ethical decisions, understanding of global problems, and acquisition of important work-related skills (NSSE, 2009).

1999 National Survey of Senior Seminars and Capstone Courses

Gardner et al.’s (1998) publication served as a catalyst for the 1999 National Survey of Senior Seminars and Capstone Courses, the first national survey to examine these curricular experiences administered by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Tran-sition. The 1999 Survey provided data regarding senior seminars and capstone courses at varying institutional types, sizes, and selectivity.

A total of 1,028 surveys were completed from 707 institutions of higher education (Henscheid, 2000). Of the total survey respondents, Henscheid (2000) reported on 864 various senior seminars or capstone courses. In addition, she noted a higher percentage of private institutions reported having a senior seminar or capstone course (58.2%) compared to public institutions (41.7%). Furthermore, Henscheid found institutions with enrollment levels between 1,001 and 5,000 were more likely to have senior seminars or capstone courses (44.7%) than those with enrollments of 1,000 or less (20.3%), between 5,001 and 10,000 (12.9%), and more than 10,000 (21.8%).

Respondents were asked to identify the type of course that best describes the senior seminar or capstone course on their campuses (Table 1). Not surprisingly, the course type identified aligned with the respondents’ primary goal for the seminar or course. Respondents who selected a discipline or department-based course also reported the most important goal of the capstone was “fostering integration and synthesis within the academic major” (Henscheid, 2000, p. 54), while respondents who reported an interdisciplinary course identified the primary capstone goal as “promoting the coherence and relevance of general education” (Henscheid, 2000, p. 95). Within senior seminars or capstone courses, oral presentations (75.1%) and major projects (71.9%) were selected as the most common instructional components. Oral presentations and major projects were also selected most frequently when responses were broken down by type of course.

Henscheid (2000) noted in the 1999 survey analysis that enrollment size of senior seminars and capstone courses varied among the responding institutions, with 33.2% reporting a range of 20-29

Course type Frequency Percent

Career planning course 26 3.0Discipline or department-based course 607 70.3Interdisciplinary capstone course 141 16.3Transition course 50 5.8Other 40 4.6

Table 1Type of Senior Seminar or Capstone Course (N = 864)

Note. Adapted from Professing the Disciplines: An Analysis of Senior Seminars and Capstone Courses, by J. M. Henscheid, 2000, Table 21. Copyright 2000 by the University of South Carolina.

Introduction | 3


students per sections; 27.4%, 10-19 students; 20.5%, 0-9 students; 11.6%, 30-39 students; and 7.3% other ranges. Nearly all of the 1999 respondents (95.4%) reporting offering the senior seminar or capstone course for credit, with more than half of these courses (57.7%) carrying three semester credit hours. In addition, 81.9% reported the length of the seminar or capstone course as one semester (Hen-scheid). Faculty had the instructional responsibility for the majority of senior seminars and capstone courses, with 43.4% of these instructors teaching as part of a team (Henscheid). Finally, Henscheid found more than three fourths (79.6%) of all respondents evaluated their senior seminar or capstone course, yet less than half (46.2%) linked these courses to comprehensive assessment efforts. 1

2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone ExperiencesOver the past decade, only a handful of studies, including the 1999 National Survey, empiri-

cally examined capstone experiences (Brownell & Swaner, 2010). The sample from the 2011 survey administration, while not nationally representative (appendix A), does provide the most updated and comprehensive analysis of the various senior capstone experiences offered during the spring 2011 semester and academic year. Content for the 2011 National Survey of Capstone Experiences is provided in appendix B, and general categories of survey items include

senior capstone experience type, structural characteristics and administration, instruction and pedagogy, and assessment and evaluation of outcomes.

Guided by the typology of the existing literature, the 2011 National Survey focused on both course- and project-based experiences to examine the current types of capstones being offered. For the 2011 National Survey, senior-status students were defined by credit hours, and senior capstone experiences were categorized into three types: (a) discipline-based capstone course (i.e., enrolling seniors from within the same discipline or major), (b) interdisciplinary capstone course (i.e., enrolling seniors from more than one discipline or major), and (c) project- based capstone experience (i.e., not dependent on a course-based component, often requiring a major task or endeavor as an end product).

Survey SampleThe 2011 administration of the National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences yielded a sample

size of 276 institutions.2 Of these colleges and universities, 268 (97.1%) reported offering one or more senior capstone experience at any department or division level. When the data are disaggregated by institutional control, 95.2% of public institutions and 98.2% of private institutions offered one or more senior capstone experience on their campus. Table 2 outlines the percentage of institutions with senior capstone experiences on the 2011 National Survey.

1 For a comprehensive review of the 1999 National Survey, please see J. M. Henscheid, 2000, Professing the Disciplines: An Analysis of Senior Seminars and Capstone Courses. 2 From this point forward, institutions refer to those colleges and universities responding to the survey (n = 276). Furthermore, since data were collected at the institutional level, institutions and respondents are synonymous. This typology is different from the 1999 survey where “courses” were the unit of analysis. See appendix A for greater detail.

Introduction | 5

Characteristics Percent

Institutional affiliationPrivate 98.2Public 95.2

Senior class size500 or less 97.5501-1,000 98.21,001-3,000 92.23,001+ 100

Table 2Institutions With Senior Capstone Experiences (N = 268)

Figure 1 illustrates the breakdown of reported percentage of seniors enrolled or participating in a senior capstone experience. Within the aggregate data, more than one third (35.4%) of respon-dents reported 100% of seniors enrolled in a senior capstone experience. This percentage increases for private institutions (44.2%) and institutions with senior enrollments less than 500 (45.1%) and between 501 and 1,000 (40.4%).

Figure 1. Breakdown of seniors enrolled or participating in a senior capstone experience(s).

Percent of Seniors Enrolled/Participating in a Senior Capstone Experience(s)

Perc

ent o

f Ins

titut

ions


ConclusionThis research report is intended to provide researchers and practitioners with data that are

accessible and informative. The report is organized into two primary sections: (a) findings and (b) implications for practice and future research. Responses to each survey item are presented within the aggregate. Where patterns emerged, the data were disaggregated and presented across institu-tional control, senior class enrollment size, and capstone types. It is the authors’ hope that the data, findings, and implications generate conversation across campuses. However, there are limitations to the generalizability of the data given the low response rate and small cell sizes for many survey items. Nevertheless, this evidence from a national sample—particularly in an area of study that is under-researched and assessed—can provide higher education professionals with a clearer portrait of senior capstone experiences. This information can guide key decisions for practitioners as they continue to develop or refine their institution’s senior capstone experience.

7

Findings From the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences

This section documents the types of senior capstone experiences currently offered, while examining the structural characteristics and administration, instruction composition and pedagogical techniques, and assessment endeavors. These findings will provide an updated snapshot of the senior capstone experience and highlight distinctive features and practices across various institutional controls and capstone types. Furthermore, a number of unique objectives, topics, good practices, and components were identified as distinguishable characteristics that support students’ culminating experiences.

Types of Senior Capstone Experiences OfferedNearly 12 years after the 1999 administration of the first National Survey of Senior Seminars

and Capstone Courses, the 2011 Survey findings show discipline-based courses continued to be the dominant senior capstone experience (i.e., 84.7% in 2011 compared to 70.3% in 1999). This finding and upward trend (i.e., a 14.4% increase since the 1999 survey) suggests the capstone experience is increasingly situated within the disciplines and serves as a culminating experience for the students’ area of study.

Although discipline-based capstone courses were the dominant culminating experience, Figure 2 illustrates the diversity of senior capstone experiences offered across institutions. A senior thesis or undergraduate research paper was a common culminating experience for nearly two thirds of the institutions (64.6%). More than half of the respondents reportedly offered an exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts as a culminating experience (58.2%), followed by an internship (46.6%), interdisciplinary course (33.2%), a comprehensive examination (20.1%), and other (7.1%).


Figure 2. Percentage of discrete capstone types across institutions. Respondents were able to identify all senior capstone experiences on campus.

Primary Senior Capstone ExperienceIt is important to distinguish between the types of capstones offered and the primary capstone

experience. Types of capstones offered refers to respondents’ selection of senior capstone experience(s) that best describe the course or project existing on campus, marking all that apply (many institutions offered multiple types of capstones). To identify the primary senior capstone experience, respon-dents were asked to select the senior capstone experience with the highest total senior enrollment (i.e., offered to the greatest percentage of seniors on campus). Respondents were then asked to com-plete the remainder of the survey based on their primary capstone experience.

When institutions were asked to identify only their primary capstone experience, the percentage of discipline-based courses (84.7%) decreased 25.1 percentage points to 59.6%. Even with this decrease, discipline-based courses continued to be offered with more than four times greater frequency than the next highest primary experience (i.e., interdisciplinary course and senior thesis or undergraduate research each at 12.9%). Table 3 illustrates the breakdown of respondents’ identification of primary capstone experience.

Type of Capstone

Perc

ent o

f Ins

titut

ions

Disciplin

e-base

d course

(n = 227)

Senior th

esis/r

esearc

h paper

(n = 173)

Exhibitio

n of arts (

n = 156)

Internship (n

= 125)

Interdisc

iplinary

course

(n = 89)

Comprehensiv

e exam

(n = 54)

Other (n = 19)

Findings | 9

Primary senior capstone experience Percent

Discipline-based capstone course 59.6Interdisciplinary capstone course 12.9Senior thesis or undergraduate research paper 12.9Other 7.1Internship 3.9Comprehensive exam 2.4Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts 1.2

Table 3Capstone Experience With the Highest Total Senior Enrollment at Each Responding Institution (n = 255)

Disaggregating these data across institutional control revealed which capstone experiences were more likely to be offered at public and private institutions (Table 4). Public institutions were more likely to use a discipline-based course as their primary capstone experience (70.3%) compared to private institutions (53.4%), and to a lesser extent, internships (4.4% compared to 3.7%). Con-versely, private institutions were more likely to use a senior thesis or undergraduate research paper as their primary experience (16.8%) compared to their public institution peers (5.5%). Private institutions were also more likely to identify interdisciplinary courses (14.3% vs. 11.0%), compre-hensive exams (3.1% vs. 1.1%), other (7.5% vs. 6.6%), and exhibition in the arts (1.2% vs. 1.1%) as their primary capstone experience. (For a more detailed discussion of survey findings related to project-based senior capstone experiences, please see “Project-Based Senior Capstone Experiences” on pp. 10-11.) Disaggregating the data across senior enrollment size revealed two findings of note. First, as senior enrollment size increased, identification of discipline-based courses as a primary experience increased (54.9% to 69.1%). Second, while senior thesis or undergraduate research paper decreased (19.2% to 7.1%) as enrollment increased. The remaining capstone experience had very little variation as senior class enrollment size increased.

Control Public %

Private%

Difference%

Percentages larger for publicDiscipline-based capstone course 70.3 53.4 16.9Internship 4.4 3.7 0.7

Percentages larger for privateSenior thesis or undergraduate research paper 5.5 16.8 -11.3Interdisciplinary capstone course 11.0 14.3 -3.3Comprehensive exam 1.1 3.1 -2.0Other 6.6 7.5 -0.9

Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts 1.1 1.2 -0.1

Table 4Capstone Experience With the Highest Total Senior Enrollment by Institutional Control


Project-Based Senior Capstone Experiences

More than a quarter of the respondents (27.5%) to the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences reported offering a project-based senior capstone experience to their students, defined as a comprehensive exam; exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts; internship; senior thesis or undergraduate research paper; or other option.

Table A.1 displays the percentage of project-based capstone experiences at four-year institutions. Within this category, senior thesis or undergraduate research paper (12.9%) was selected as the project-based capstone experience with highest total enrollment of seniors followed by other (7.1%); internships (3.9%); comprehensive exam (2.4%); and exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts (1.2%). Respondents who selected other as their primary experience were asked to specify the characteristics of that experience. Of the nine respondents who described other capstone experiences, two themes emerged: (a) a hybrid-like capstone experience and (b) student teaching. The term hybrid has been defined as a course or experience that intentionally blends or captures characteristics of various courses or components into one (see Padgett & Keup, 2011 for the use of hybrid course with first-year seminars). An example of a hybrid-like course from the 2011 National Survey is a discipline-based course in engineering focusing primarily on a senior design project required for graduation. This course is discipline-specific but also concentrates on the incorporation and fulfillment of a senior project. This is somewhat similar to the second theme, student teaching that emerged from the other category. Though the specification of student teaching was nondescriptive, this capstone experience suggests the majority of students are required to serve in an undergraduate teaching or peer-leader role at the institution. Related more specifically to the discipline of education, student teaching could also refer to the required onsite instruction educators must complete before receiving their teaching certificates. Nonetheless, the identification of student teaching as a capstone experience highlights the various curriculum requirements taking place within higher education.

Project-based capstone experiencePrimary

experience %

Discrete experience

%

Senior thesis or undergraduate research paper 12.9 64.6Other 7.1 7.1Internships 3.9 46.6Comprehensive exam 2.4 20.1Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts 1.2 58.2

Table A.1Percentage of Primary and Discrete Project-Based Experiences

If respondents selected a senior capstone project as their primary capstone experience, they were asked if the project had a course component (i.e., a requirement for seniors to attend an instructor-led class as part of the project). Slightly less than two thirds (62.7%) reported their project-based experience had an instructor-led class component. When these data are aggregated with the respondents who selected a discipline-based or interdisciplinary course as their primary capstone experience, 89.0% of all capstone experiences are course-based. This suggests course-based, instructor-led capstones continue to be the dominant form of culminating experience within higher education. Moreover, it is worth noting that approximately half (55.3%) of all project-based experiences were linked to one or more courses. This finding may contribute to the percentage of instructor-led components.

Further, the number of respondents who reported offering a senior thesis or under graduate research paper as their primary capstone experience is identical to those who of-fered an interdisciplinary capstone course (12.9%, respectively). A simple cross-tabulation between senior thesis or undergraduate research paper and the survey item identifying course component revealed only 54.5% of respondents who offered a thesis or research as a primary experience had a required course-component (n = 18). Within the aggregate analyses, this explains only 7.1% of senior capstone experiences and did not provide enough cases to reliably compare discipline-based and interdisciplinary courses in this report.

Overall, data from the project-based experiences suggest the senior capstone is still deeply rooted within the faculty-led curriculum. Anecdotal evidence had suggested insti-tutions were moving toward innovative out-of-class capstone projects. Yet, data from both the 1999 and 2011 National Surveys indicate the primary senior capstone within higher education is likely to be course-based.

Findings | 11


3 Respondents were only able to select up to three objectives.

Disciplines Within Capstone Experience

Respondents who selected the discipline-based and interdisciplinary capstone course as their primary senior capstone experience were subsequently asked to identify the discipline(s) comprising the course. The specified disciplines in order of frequency were business (32.7%), applied science (19.1%), social sciences (16.3%), other (11.6%), humanities (10.2%), and natural sciences (8.2%). When asked to identify the disciplines comprising the interdisciplinary course, respondents’ se-lections were more varied. Within the aggregate, more than half of the interdisciplinary courses incorporated humanities (51.5%), followed by business and social sciences (39.4%, each), applied science and natural sciences (30.3%, each), other (27.3%), and performing arts (21.2%).

Structural Characteristics and AdministrationHow a capstone course is structured and administered defines how an institution views the

purpose of the course within the curriculum. These characteristics not only paint a broad picture of the structure of the capstone but also reveal new evidence for practitioners as they continue to incorporate innovative components and practices within the experience.

Objectives, Topics, and Practices

The 2011 National Survey asked respondents to report the three most important capstone or course objectives 3 established within the culminating experience. Theoretically, objectives reflect the strategic mission of the initiative. In other words, what types of skills do institutions expect their students to gain after participating in the capstone experience?

Examining the data in the aggregate revealed five dominant objectives: increased or improved (a) critical thinking, analytical, and/or problem-solving skills (49.6%); (b) ability to conduct schol-arly research (27.6%); (c) career preparation (25.0%); (d) professional development (23.5%); and (e) proficiency in written communication (22.8%). When the data are disaggregated by institutional type, the difference in the selection of capstone objectives becomes clearer (Table 5). Though increased critical thinking, analytical skills, and/or problem-solving skills was still the dominant objective for both public and private institutions (55.1% vs. 47.6%, respectively), public institutions were nearly twice as likely to identify professional development as an objective (33.7% vs. 17.5%, respectively). Conversely, private institutions were more likely to identify the ability to conduct scholarly research (32.5% vs. 19.4%, respectively) and proficiency in oral communication (18.1% vs. 10.2%, respectively) as objectives compared to public institutions. The differences between public and privates across the remaining course objectives were less pronounced.

Disaggregating the most important objectives by capstone type revealed overlap across ex-perience types (Table 6). Across the three most commonly reported, increase critical thinking, analytical skills, and/or problem-solving skills remained as the top objective. Of particular inter-est, discipline-based courses and project-based experiences reported nearly identical objectives, aligning five of the top six objectives: increased or improved (a) critical thinking, analytical skills, and/or problem-solving skills, (b) ability to conduct scholarly research, (c) career preparation, (d) proficiency in written communication, and (e) ability to perform independently. An additional top objective of discipline-based courses was improved professional development, also identi-fied by respondents as a top objective for interdisciplinary courses. The sixth top objective for

Increase or improve … Public %

Private %

Difference %

Percentage larger for public institutionsProfessional development 33.7 17.5 16.2Critical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills

55.1 47.6 7.5

Life skills 3.1 1.2 1.9Appreciation of discipline(s) 18.4 16.9 1.5Satisfaction with academic discipline 2.0 0.6 1.4

Percentage larger for private institutionsAbility to conduct scholarly research 19.4 32.5 -13.1Proficiency in oral communication 10.2 18.1 -7.9Proficiency in written communication 20.4 24.1 -3.7Preparation for graduate school 2.0 5.4 -3.4Out-of-class student-instructor interaction(s)

0.0 2.4 -2.4

Other 9.2 11.4 -2.3Career preparation 23.5 25.3 -1.8Certification preparation 2.0 3.6 -1.6Ability to perform independently 17.3 18.1 -0.7Satisfaction with institution 0.0 0.6 -0.6Persistence to graduation 0.0 0.6 -0.6

No difference between institutionsConnections with peers 0.0 0.0 0.0Satisfaction with instructor 0.0 0.0 0.0Use of campus services 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 5Most Important Capstone Objectives by Institutional Control

project-based experiences was improved proficiency in oral communication, similarly shared by interdisciplinary courses as an important objective. The remaining commonly reported objectives for interdisciplinary courses include increased proficiency in written communication (shared by all capstone types), greater appreciation of the discipline(s), and other.

In conjunction with course objectives, respondents were asked to identify the three most important topics comprising the content of the capstone experience. It would be expected that objectives and topics would complement one another in aligning with the strategic mission of the capstone experience.

According to the 2011 National Survey, the most commonly reported objectives align consis-tently with the most commonly reported topics. Examining the data in the aggregate, the five most commonly reported course or capstone topics include (a) critical thinking, analytical skills, and/or problem-solving skills (51.9%); (b) discipline-specific topic (43.3%); (c) conducting scholarly

Findings | 13


Increase or improve … Percent

Percentages for discipline-based courseCritical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 59.9Ability to conduct scholarly research 36.2Career preparation 32.9Professional development 31.6Proficiency in written communication 25.0Ability to perform independently 22.4

Percentages for interdisciplinary courseCritical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 69.7Proficiency in written communication 36.4Other 33.3Appreciation of discipline(s) 30.3Proficiency in oral communication 27.3Professional development 21.2

Percentages for project-based experienceCritical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 27.1Ability to conduct scholarly research 21.4Ability to perform independently 20.0Career preparation 18.6Proficiency in written communication 15.7Proficiency in oral communication 14.3

Table 6Most Important Objectives by Capstone Type

research (26.5%); (d) writing skills (20.9%); and (e) teamwork or group work (16.8%). It is worth noting that career development fell just short of the top five most important topics at 16.4%. Table 7 illustrates the alignment between objectives and topics. Critical thinking was frequently reported as the most important objective and topic, followed by consistent overlap between con-ducting scholarly research and written communication. Discipline-specific topics and teamwork or group work—identified here as topics—are fundamental components of career preparation and professional development, reinforcing the overlap between objectives and topics.

A few notable differences appear when the data are disaggregated across institutional and capstone type (Table 8). Public institutions were nearly three times more likely to use teamwork or group work within the capstone experience (28.6%) compared to private institutions (10.2%). Conversely, private institutions were nearly twice as likely to incorporate writing skills within the capstone experience (25.3%) compared to their public peers (13.3%), and substantially more likely to identify conducting scholarly research (30.7% vs. 19.4%, respectively) and ethical issues (15.1% vs. 5.1%, respectively) as important course topics compared to their public peers.

15

Capstone course Percent

Objective – increase or improve …Critical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 49.6Ability to conduct scholarly research 27.6Career preparation 25.0Professional development 23.5Proficiency in written communication 22.8

Topica

Critical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 51.9Discipline-specific topic 43.3Conducting scholarly research 26.5Writing skills 20.9Teamwork or group work 16.8

Table 7Comparison of Commonly Reported Course or Capstone Objectives and Topics

a Career development was ranked sixth most important topic (16.4%).

Disaggregating the most important topics by capstone type revealed patterns similar to those seen in reported objectives across capstone types (Table 9). Critical thinking, analytical skills, and problem-solving skills; discipline-specific topics; and writing skills were commonly shared across all three capstone types. Conducting scholarly research and career development were shared be-tween discipline-based courses and project-based experiences; whereas, teamwork or group work was shared between discipline-based and interdisciplinary courses. Oral communication skills ranked near the bottom of the most commonly reported topics for both interdisciplinary courses and project-based experiences, with ethical issues only appearing as an important topic within interdisciplinary courses.

In addition to course or capstone objectives and topics, the 2011 National Survey asked respondents to indicate which types of effective educational practices were incorporated into the capstone course. Based primarily on Chickering and Gamson’s (1987, 1991) original seven prin-ciples of good practice and expanded to include other vetted practices (Pascarella et al., 2006), these characteristics of educational experiences have been positively linked to cognitive, psychosocial, and student development in college (Astin, 1993; Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, & Pascarella. 2006; Goodman, Baxter Magolda, Seifert, & King, 2011; Pascarella, Seifert, & Blaich, 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Respondents had the opportunity to identify as many good practices as applied, possibly explaining the high percentages reported across each response option.

The range of percentages across the good practices varied from 14.2% (diversity experiences) to 60.1% (integrative learning). Integrative learning between courses or between coursework and life events was reported as the most incorporated good practice followed by faculty communica-tion of high expectations (57.1%), an academically challenging course (55.2%), active learning encourage by the instructor (45.1%), cooperative learning activities (38.4%), and positive peer interactions (32.5%). Diversity experiences (14.2%), nonclassroom interactions with faculty

Findings | 15


Control Public %

Private %

Difference %

Percentage larger for public institutionsTeamwork or group work 28.6 10.2 18.3Other a 10.2 4.2 6.0Leadership skills 11.2 6.0 5.2Discipline-specific topic 43.9 42.2 1.7Certification readiness 4.1 3.0 1.1Engaged alumni or alumni opportunities 1.0 0.0 1.0

Percentage larger for private institutionsWriting skills 13.3 25.3 -12.0Conducting scholarly research 19.4 30.7 -11.3Ethical issues 5.1 15.1 -10.0

Critical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 48.0 54.8 -6.9Oral communication skills 6.1 11.4 -5.3Technology skills 2.0 4.2 -2.2Graduate school application process 0.0 1.2 -1.2Diversity issues 1.0 1.2 -0.2Relationship skills 1.0 1.2 -0.2

No difference between institutionsCareer development 16.3 16.3 0.0Financial literacy 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 8Most Important Capstone Topics by Institutional Control

a Though some respondents identified unique senior capstone experiences not captured within these data (e.g., case study techniques, musical performance, integration of coursework and real-world problems), the other category included only 10 responses that primarily described either how the capstone varied by discipline or how the course content was applied.

(17.2%), and prompt feedback (26.1%) were identified as the least incorporated good practices within the capstone experience.

Table 10 provides the breakdown of good practices between public and private institutions. Again, given the high percentages across each good practice, the percent difference across insti-tutional type was minimal, with private institutions typically having a larger percentage for each good practice. When the data were disaggregated across capstone type, the percent difference between types was also minimal (Table 11). Five out of the seven most commonly reported good practices were incorporated into each type. A few key differences emerged, though, including (a) a greater likelihood of the use of higher order exams and assignments in discipline-based courses, (b) quality classroom interactions with the instructor within interdisciplinary courses, and (c) emphasis on time on task and submitting work as well as prompt feedback from instructor within project-based experiences.

Type Percent

Percentages for discipline-based courseCritical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 65.1Discipline-specific topic 55.3Conducting scholarly research 33.6Writing skills 23.0Career development 21.1Teamwork or group work 21.1

Percentages for interdisciplinary courseCritical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 60.6Ethical issues 39.4Writing skills 30.3Discipline-specific topic 24.2Teamwork or group work 24.2Oral communication skills 21.2

Percentages for project-based experienceDiscipline-specific topic 34.3Critical thinking and/or analytical or problem-solving skills 28.6Conducting scholarly research 21.4Career development 15.7Writing skills 15.7Oral communication skills 8.6

Table 9Most Important Topics by Capstone Type

Following the trajectory of objectives, topics, and good practices, respondents were asked to select the final component or end-product required to complete the capstone experience. These response items ranged from a final project or examination to a résumé or graduate school application. Regardless of the type of data (i.e., aggregated or disaggregated), five final components emerged as the clear end-products for the capstone experience: (a) final project (54.9%); (b) final presentation (47.4%); (c) research paper or thesis (38.8%); (d) exhibition of art, performance, or recital (28.0%); and (e) comprehensive curricular portfolio (23.1%).

Class Size

Respondents were asked to identify the approximate class size for each section of the primary capstone experience. It is importance to distinguish the difference between senior class size—the overall senior population at the institution—and capstone class size, defined as the enrollment of each course section. Class sizes of 19 or below are the typical dichotomous threshold for reporting class size in practice and within the college rankings reporting (Padgett & Keup, 2011). Nearly two thirds

Findings | 17


(66.0%) of all senior capstone experiences had an approximate class size of 19 students or lower per section. However, the average class size was more likely to be higher at public institutions (compared to private), as overall senior class size increased, and within interdisciplinary courses.

Sections

Within the aggregate, 43.9% of all respondents indicated the approximate number of sections of the capstone course or experience ranged between 1 and 10 sections. This percentage was higher at private institutions (47.5%) and institutions with a senior class size of less than 500 (57.3%). In other words, public institutions and institutions with senior class sizes above 501 were more likely to offer a greater number of capstone sections compared to their peers. Across nearly all institutional and capstone experience types, the typical length of a section of the capstone experience was one semester (83.6%). This differed somewhat for senior capstone projects, which had a slightly higher percentage (15.8% compared to the aggregate 7.0%) of sections lasting one year.

Grades and Credit

Discipline-based and interdisciplinary capstone courses are universally letter graded (93.3% and 96.6%, respectively). By comparison, senior capstone projects were less likely to be letter graded (71.1%), and a larger percentage used pass/fail or other (13.2%) grading systems. Nonetheless, nearly every respondent (98.5%) reported the senior capstone course or experience carried academic credits, with 70.4% offering the capstone for three credits, 13.8% offering four credits, and 8.7% offering five

Control Public %

Private %

Difference %

Percentage larger for public institutionsCooperative learning 41.8 36.1 5.7Diversity experiences 16.3 13.3 3.1Other 5.1 2.4 2.7

Instructor encouragement of active learning 45.9 45.2 0.7

Percentage larger for private institutions

Academically challenging course 48.0 59.6 -11.7Quality nonclassroom interactions with instructor 11.2 21.1 -9.9Quality classroom interactions with instructor 21.4 30.1 -8.7Emphasis on time on task and submitting work 23.5 31.3 -7.9Prompt feedback from instructor 21.4 28.9 -7.5Communication of high expectations 53.1 59.0 -6.0Integrative learning 58.2 62.0 -3.9Positive peer interactions 30.6 33.7 -3.1Use of higher order exams and assignments 29.6 30.7 -1.1

Table 10Incorporation of Good Practices by Institutional Control

Type Percent

Percentages for discipline-based courseIntegrative learning 73.0Communication of high expectations 69.7Academically challenging course 67.8Instructor encouragement of active learning 52.6Cooperative learning 48.0Positive peer interactions 37.5Use of higher order exams and assignments 37.5

Percentages for interdisciplinary courseIntegrative learning 84.8Academically challenging course 60.6Communication of high expectations 57.6Positive peer interactions 57.6Instructor encouragement of active learning 54.5Cooperative learning 45.5Quality classroom interactions with instructor 36.4

Percentages for project-based experienceCommunication of high expectations 40.0Academically challenging course 35.7Instructor encouragement of active learning 32.9Integrative learning 31.4Emphasis on time on task and submitting work 28.6Cooperative learning 21.4Prompt feedback from instructor 18.6

Table 11Most Commonly Reported Good Practices by Capstone Type

or more credits. In addition, credits were frequently applied to a major (63.1%) or general education requirement (15.7%), with only 3.4% of institutions having applied capstone credit as an elective. These findings highlight the legitimacy of senior capstone experiences within the college curriculum on the national level.

Administrative Unit

The legitimacy of senior capstone experiences as a core academic component of the college curriculum is even more evident when examining the campus unit directly administering the capstone course or experience. Within the aggregate, 68.9% of respondents reported the senior capstone experience is administered within an academic department(s), with 16.3% administered through academic affairs and 10.7% within a college or school. When the data are disaggregated

Findings | 19


across institutional control, these findings differ across publics and privates. Private institutions were nearly four times more likely to administer the capstone experience within academic affairs (22.2% vs. 5.9%); whereas, public institutions were more likely to administer the capstone experience within an academic department(s) (76.5% vs. 64.3%) or college or school (14.7% vs. 8.7%). The campus unit directly administering the experience also differed across capstone types. Discipline-based (73.3%) and project-based (75.7%) capstone experiences were more likely to be administered within an academic department(s) compared to interdisciplinary courses (39.3%). Interdisciplinary courses were also as likely to be administered within academic affairs (32.1%) and to a lesser extent within a college or school or other (10.7%, each). Across all campus units administering the experience, approximately one fourth (24.1%) had a dean, director, or coordinator position, which was held by a faculty member (75.0%), academic affairs administrator (27.3%), or other (22.7%).

Instruction and PedagogyThe structural and administrational characteristics of senior capstones suggest the experiences are

a core academic component and mimic the design and implementation of their more formal academic course counterparts. Instruction and pedagogy within the capstone experience are similarly aligned with traditional academic structures.

The 2011 National Survey asked respondents to identify the primary instructor of the senior capstone course or experience, allowing them to mark as many as eight types of instructors. More than half (57.8%) of all respondents reported tenure-track faculty as the primary instructor, followed by full-time, non-tenure-track faculty (18.3%). Combined, tenure-track and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty comprise more than 75% of the primary instructors within capstone experiences. Approximately 10% of all respondents identified adjunct faculty as the primary instructor, followed by other (7.5%) and academic affairs professionals (7.5%). These data tended to persist across public and private universities and discipline-based and interdisciplinary courses (Table 12), with minor differences across some types of instructors. The one exception was project-based experiences, which tended to be instructed more evenly across tenure-track faculty (31.4%); full-time, non-tenure-track faculty (20.0%); other (11.4%); and adjunct faculty (10.0%).

In addition to the identification of the primary instructor, the 2011 National Survey inquired about the approximate percentage of sections that are team-taught. The distribution of the data sug-gests team teaching is not a widely used pedagogical approach within senior capstone experiences. The majority of respondents (43.7%) reported less than 10% of their capstone experience sections are team taught; conversely, 5.8% report all their sections are team taught. Though no distinguishable patterns emerged when the data were disaggregated across institutional characteristics and capstone types, the percentage of capstone experiences that offered no team-taught sections hovered around 18%,with this result being lower than other transitional high-impact practices, such as first-year seminars (Padgett & Keup, 2011). Data from the 2009 National Survey of First-Year Seminars (Padgett & Keup, 2011) suggest 56.4% of first-year seminars had no sections that were team taught. First-year seminars typically use undergraduate and graduate peer leaders to foster incoming students’ transition into the college environment. One possible explanation for this difference is that senior capstones may rely less on peer leaders and more on co-instructors. Unfortunately, the survey did not qualitatively assess the type of team-teaching techniques being used within the senior experience. It is encouraging that senior capstone experiences are using team teaching—though minimally—to support senior students within their culminating experiences. Future research investigating the impact of team teaching or peer leadership within the college curriculum should not overlook senior capstone experiences as a concentration for this pedagogical practice.

Control Type

Instructor

Public %

Private %

Discipline-based course

%

Interdisciplinary course

%

Project-based

%

Total %

Tenure-track faculty 63.3 54.8 71.7 72.7 31.4 57.8Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty

12.2 22.3 17.8 24.2 20.0 18.3

Adjunct faculty 11.2 10.2 9.9 18.2 10.0 10.4Other 7.1 7.8 5.9 9.1 11.4 7.5Academic affairs professionals

3.1 4.8 2.6 6.1 7.1 4.1

Student affairs professionals

0.0 1.2 0.7 3.0 0.0 0.7

Graduate students 2.0 0.0 0.7 3.0 0.0 0.7Undergraduate students 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 12Primary Instructor by Control and Capstone Type

Note. Percentages will sum to more than 100% since respondents were allowed to mark more than one category.

Asked if any of the sections of the senior capstone course or experience were linked to one or more other courses, 35.0% of respondents reported there were course-linked sections. This percent-age remained relatively consistent across institutional characteristics. However, when the data were disaggregated across capstone types, interdisciplinary courses were less likely to have course-linked sections (24.1%) while project-based experiences were more likely to have them (55.3%). In addi-tion to team teaching and linked courses, respondents were asked if course training was offered to capstone instructors. Only 27.8% of all respondents reported there was instructor training, and less than half of this group (42.6%) indicated the training was required. Where the training was offered, 42.9% stated it lasted one day or less.

Online Courses or Components

Respondents were asked to report the extent to which any sections of the senior capstone experi-ence incorporated online components. Within the aggregate, 39.9% reported some form of online component was included. Public institutions were more likely to use online components (53.7%) compared to private institutions (32.8%). Discipline-based capstone courses were much more likely to incorporate an online component (60.7%) compared to interdisciplinary courses (31.6%) and project-based experiences (39.9%). Furthermore, the data suggest as the senior class size increases the percentage of capstone experiences including an online component increases (Figure 3).

As with online components, public institutions (27.1%) were nearly three times more likely to use online-only sections compared to their private peers (10.2%). Institutions with larger se-nior classes were also more likely to have online-only sections, with 37.8% of institutions with an enrolled senior class of more than 3,001 using online-only sections compared to institutions with a senior class of 1,001-3,000 (15.2%).

Findings | 21


Assessment and Evaluation of OutcomesMore than half (55.7%) of the institutions in the 2011 National Survey had formally assessed

or evaluated the senior experience over the last three years; whereas, 31.3% reported no formal assessment takes place, and 13.0% did not know if any assessment was conducted. This suggests the primary stakeholders of the senior experience have not fully engaged in formally assessing the impact of the culminating experience on their students. However, this is not to suggest capstone experiences are the only underassessed high-impact practice. Data from the 2009 National Survey of First-Year Seminars (Padgett & Keup, 2011) suggest nearly the same percentage of institutions formally assess the first-year seminar (56.5%) as assess senior experiences (55.7%).

When the assessment data are categorized by quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, it becomes evident institutions rely more on quantitative assessment strategies and mixed methods (e.g., accreditation) than qualitative assessment strategies (Table 13). Approximately three quarters (74.8%) of respondents who formally assess the senior experience used student course evaluations as the primary mode of assessment, followed by analysis of institutional data (62.6%), accreditation (60.7%), and survey instrument (43.0%). Institutions that used survey instruments administered both locally developed (76.1%) and national (71.7%) surveys, with the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as the primary national survey of choice (93.9%), followed by the Coopera-tive Institutional Research Program (CIRP) College Senior Survey (15.2%).

To further explore evaluation strategies, respondents were asked to select up to three outcomes that were measured during assessment. Theoretically, the assessment of the outcomes should align with the capstone’s designated objectives and topics, and this was found to be true in the 2011 National Survey data. As noted earlier (see Objectives, Topics, and Practices subsection), the five dominant course objectives identified in the Survey, which consistently aligned with course topics, were improved or increased (a) critical thinking, analytical skills, and/or problem-solving skills (49.6%); (b) ability to conduct scholarly research (27.6%); (c) career preparation (25.0%); (d) professional development (23.5%); and (e) proficiency in written communication (22.8%). The five top measured outcomes in the 2011 National Survey were improved or increased (a) critical

Figure 3. Percentage of sections incorporating an online component.

Senior Class Size

Perc

ent o

f Sec

tions

501-1,000 1,001-3,000 3,001+Less than 500

Method Percent

Quantitative assessment strategiesStudent course evaluation 74.8Analysis of institutional data 62.6Survey instrument 43.0

Qualitative assessment strategiesFocus groups with students 23.4Focus groups with instructors 16.8Individual interviews with students 15.0Individual interviews with instructors 12.1

Mixed MethodsAccreditation 60.7

Table 13Senior Capstone Experience Assessment Methods (n = 107)

Note. Percentages will sum to more than 100% since respondents were allowed to mark more than one category.

thinking, analytical skills, and/or problem-solving skills (71.0%); (b) written communication (44.9%); (c) connection to the discipline(s) (38.3%); (d) oral communication (28.0%); and (e) satisfaction with instructor (14.0%). It should be noted satisfaction with instructor was never identified as a course objective or topic—though faculty interaction was a possible selection—and is likely a by-product of the high percentage of respondents who use course evaluations (typically including questions on instructor performance) as a primary assessment tool. Nonetheless, the consistent alignment between capstone objectives—through topics and good practices—to outcomes is strong empirical evidence of the connective thread between capstones’ outlined purpose and goals that were found to be missing in other high-impact practices (Padgett & Keup, 2011).

Two-Year InstitutionsThe main purpose of the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences was to capture

national data on the types, characteristics, and assessment of senior capstone experiences. The capstone—or culminating experience—is primarily associated with four-year institutions, as senior status is typically defined by credit hours obtained and the completion of a baccalaureate degree. As such, this definition would seem to exclude any culminating courses or experiences offered at two-year institutions. Yet, two-year institutions can define the capstone experience as a culminating course or project that is discipline-based or interdisciplinary offered during the students’ last year of study. To better gauge the range of culminating experiences in American higher education, a subset of survey items from the 2011 National Survey was administered to both public and private two-year institutions. For a more detailed discussion of survey findings related to two-year institu-tions’ experiences, please see the “Two-Year Institutions” insert on pp. 24-25.

Findings | 23


Two-Year Institutions

Of all the colleges and universities who participated in the 2011 National Survey, only 15.6% identified themselves as two-year institutions. This percentage is significantly lower than the national average of two-year institutions within American higher education and sug-gests the data from two-year institutions may not be representative of the national average. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge this is the first national survey to collect aggregate data on the types, characteristics, and assessment of capstone experiences at two-year institutions.

2011 Survey findings suggest less than two thirds (62.8%) of participating two-year institu-tions offer one or more capstone experience(s) at the department or division level, while 27.9% did not have a senior experience and 9.3% did not know if one was offered. Respondents from two-year institutions were also asked to select the capstone experience(s) that best described the course or project on their campus. More than half of the two-year institution respondents (59.3%) reported their college offered a discipline-based capstone course. Table A.2 provides a list of the capstone experiences existing at two-year institutions. Following discipline-based courses, respondents reported internships (40.7%), portfolios (33.3%), comprehensive exams (22.2%), certification within a career (18.5%), and interdisciplinary capstone courses (18.5%) as the most common culminating experience at two-year institutions. It is important to note that respondents from two-year institutions were not asked to identify the primary capstone experience at their institution. Regardless, the variance in the percentages of capstone experi-ences offered suggests two-year institutions do not rely on one particular type of culminating experience. Furthermore, some capstone experiences existed only at two-year institutions and were not reported at four-year institutions (e.g., certification within a career, preparation for transfer).

Capstone experience Percent

Discipline-based capstone course 59.3Internship 40.7Portfolio 33.3Comprehensive exam 22.2Certification within career 18.5Interdisciplinary capstone course 18.5Service-learning or community service project 14.8Preparation for transfer to four-year institution 11.1Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts 7.4Final presentation 7.4Other 7.4Senior thesis or undergraduate research paper 0

Table A.2Percentage of Senior Capstone Experiences at Two-Year Institutions

Similar to four-year institutions, two-year respondents reported hybrid-like capstone experiences, and multiple discipline-based courses were incorporated into the curriculum. For example, a hybrid course at a public, two-year institution focused on communication and composition within the discipline and incorporated a service-learning component. Another example was a unique capstone offered by each academic program, which unilaterally focused on the demonstration of competence in critical program learning objectives. Within the aggregate, these findings suggest the type of capstone experience varies minimally between two- and four-year institutions.

In addition to identifying the type of capstone experience existing on two-year campuses, respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of students who enrolled or participated in the capstone experience. More than half of all two-year respondents (53.9%) reported less than half of their students participated in a senior experience, with 15.4% reporting less than 10% participation. These numbers may be conservative given that 9.3% of the respondents did not know whether a capstone was offered on campus. Lastly, not a single institution reported the senior experience was required (i.e., 100%).

Overall, these data suggest senior capstone experiences at two-year institutions vary across disciplines and programs similar to their four-year counterparts. Though discipline-based courses were used by the largest percentage of institutions, no one capstone type was identified as a dominant program. In addition, the data suggest a lower proportion of students are likely to participate in a capstone experience at two-year institutions compared to four-year institutions. The low sample size of participating two-year institutions within the 2011 National Survey data limits the comparable statistical analyses that may uncover additional trends. Nonetheless, these data provide the beginnings for a national discussion to better un-derstand how senior capstone experiences are used and implemented at two-year institutions.

Findings | 25


ConclusionInstitutions continue to rely heavily on course-based senior capstone experiences, specifi-

cally within the academic disciplines. Though institutions offer many various types of capstones, including project-based experiences, the primary culminating experience for more than half of all institutions is a discipline-based course. The incorporation of the discipline-based course within the academic curriculum legitimizes the senior capstone as an integral component of the institu-tion. Moreover, capstones use vetted instructional practices, supporting Kuh’s assertion that senior capstone experiences are effective because they combine and concentrate a number of educationally purposeful practices (Brownell & Swaner, 2010). In addition to incorporating good practices, these data suggest capstone experiences are accurately and consistently measuring the objectives, topics, and practices set forth by its constituencies in preparing seniors for life after college.

27

Implications for Practice and Research

As stated earlier in this report, the senior capstone experience has been defined and redefined over the past decade (Boyer Commission, 1998; Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Gardner & Van der Veer, 1998; Levine, 1998; Rowles et al., 2004). Ranging in scope from courses to unique senior projects, the capstone experience has emerged as an integrated programmatic tool to provide a culminating bookend to the college experience. The first assessment of senior capstone courses in 1999 provided a comprehensive national snapshot of the characteristics of this high-impact practice. The data from the 1999 National Survey suggested the senior capstone experience was firmly rooted within the academic curriculum as a course-based initiative. More than a decade later, the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences found nearly identical results; approximately three quarters (72.5%) of the primary capstone experiences are discipline-based or interdisciplinary courses. When accounting for the project-based experience incorporating a course, the percentage of capstone experiences using a course-based component jumps to 89.0%.

Higher education’s reliance on course-based experiences legitimizes capstones as an academic initiative incorporated into the curriculum. With tenure-track and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty serving as the primary instructor, institutions are investing in personnel and resources to provide seniors with a course-based capstone.

This is not to undermine, however, the impact project-based capstone experiences, which can serve as a vehicle for innovative initiatives. As supported by the empirical evidence from the 2011 National Survey, institutions are using the capstone experience as a means to strengthen graduating seniors’ critical and analytical skills, career preparation, professional development, and workplace skills (e.g., written and oral communication, ability to conduct scholarly research). Many of these objectives and skills can be applied to workplace-related, out-of-class experiences, including internships, practica, undergraduate research studies, and professional-based projects (e.g., the design project required by engineering students, a gallery exhibit by a visual arts major, student teaching by a prospective elementary teacher). The continued reliance on discipline-based and interdisciplinary courses, noted in both the 1999 and 2011 National Surveys, suggests fewer innovative project-based experiences have been implemented across four-year institutions, and institutions using unique types of capstones should be encouraged to document and share their experiences so as to chronicle successful initiatives.

AssessmentIn his foreword to Brownell and Swaner’s (2010) report on the effectiveness of high-impact

practices, George Kuh attributes the success of these practices to their ability to “combine and


concentrate other empirically validated pedagogical approaches into a single multidimensional activ-ity …. At the same time, while promising, they are not a panacea. Only when they are implemented well and continually evaluated … will we realize their considerable potential” (p. xiii). Findings from the 2011 National Survey clearly demonstrate institutions are introducing validated and vetted good practices within the capstone experience, especially integrative learning, communication of high expectations, academic challenge, active learning, cooperative learning, and engagement in positive peer interactions. But as Kuh notes, high-impact practices (i.e., senior capstone experiences) must be assessed to measure their impact on student learning and preparation.

According to 2011 National Survey data, institutions appear to be aligning their course objec-tives with their measured outcomes suggesting they have a consistent planning and implementation process from the onset of the capstone (course objectives), to the topics introduced and practices implemented within it, and finally to the outset of the capstone (measuring student outcomes). Critical thinking and analytical skills were consistently ranked as the most important course ob-jective, topic, and outcome. Other consistent themes through the capstone experience included improved or increased (a) ability to perform scholarly research, (b) written and oral communication skills, (c) knowledge of the discipline, (d) career preparation, and (e) professional development. The consistency in this alignment suggests institutions have a strategically supported process in place for their capstone experiences. This alignment is encouraging given higher education’s heavy reliance on assessment-based initiatives and processes to document the effectiveness of implemented programs and courses. Other campuswide, high-impact practices and programs would benefit from the strategic model set forth by capstone experiences.

The apparent success of strategic planning of senior experiences coupled with the multiple types of capstone experiences offered across a wide variety of departments, colleges, and majors, raises additional assessment questions. Unlike first-year seminars, which typically administer one type of course to a significantly large proportion of students (Padgett & Keup, 2011), stakeholders who assess the effectiveness of the capstone experience must account for the variation of students in each capstone as well as the different types of experiences and variety of disciplines. From an assess-ment perspective, it begs the question as to how institutions are properly assessing—if at all—each capstone experience. If only 55.7% of institutions are formally assessing their primary capstone experience, are the other (i.e., nonprimary) capstone experiences being formally assessed as well?

The lack of formal assessment and overreliance on student course evaluations and institu-tional data compromises proper assessment practices as a means of gauging student learning and development. In addition, assessment becomes more challenging when factoring in multiple types of students, experiences, and disciplines. In general, it would be erroneous to make a broad assumption that student participation in senior capstones is effective if only one type of capstone is assessed. For example, the NSSE asks seniors if they have participated in a culminating senior experience. Responses to this question can be used to measure the engagement and involvement of seniors who participated in such an experience. However, if multiple capstone experiences are offered across campus, one must account or control for these experiences so as to identify which seniors participated in which type. Reliance on aggregate data does not isolate the direct effects of participating in a particular experience. Supplemental assessment may be necessary to directly measure student involvement within a culminating experience. For this to happen, the allocation of resources, personnel, and time for more comprehensive assessment must be established.

The complexity of assessment for institutions with multiple capstone experiences suggests another overarching concern about institutions’ reliance on discipline-based courses: Is there a standard institutional metric (i.e., set of criteria or rubric) for the capstone experience? According

to the 2011 National Survey, more than two thirds (68.9%) of academic departments administer the capstone, with only 24.1% of institutions allocating a dean, director, or coordinator for the capstone. The multitude of capstones and the departmental oversight make it extremely difficult to establish a baseline comparison for assessment.

ResearchAs mentioned in the introduction, for an identified high-impact program embedded within

the academic curriculum and legitimatized by the types of personnel required to instruct it, little national- or institutional-level research on the senior capstone experience exists. In contrast, first-year seminars, also high-impact, embedded, and legitimized programs, may be the most researched course within undergraduate education (Cuseo, 2009a, 2009b; Koch, 2001; Koch, Foote, Hinkle, Keup, & Pistilli, 2007). However, first-year seminars and senior capstones experiences share a com-mon research gap in that few studies have examined the impact of the various types of seminars or capstones, respectively, on student learning and development.

Future research on the senior-year experience must account or control for capstone type when estimating the effect of participation. The ability to isolate and measure the levels of engagement, involvement, and outcomes within each type will demonstrate the direct effect participation has across experiences. Furthermore, this research may begin to debunk assumptions about specific types of culminating experiences. For example, as colleges and universities continue to rely on discipline-based courses, future research may suggest interdisciplinary courses or undergraduate research papers or theses are more effective as capstone experiences. Finally, research examining the impact of senior capstones across student outcomes must expand beyond academic performance and graduation rates. Findings from the 2011 National Survey identified, among other responses, improved or increased (a) critical thinking and analytical skills, (b) career and professional devel-opment, and (c) written and oral communication as important outcomes for the senior capstone experience. Yet to the best of our knowledge, very little empirically evidence links participation in these experiences with such outcomes.

ConclusionMuch still remains to be learned about the impact participation in a senior capstone experience

has on students’ transitions through college and beyond. This research report provides a snapshot of how institutions administer, instruct, and assess their capstone experiences. Yet, we know very little about the capstone experience from the students’ perspective. It is imperative that continuous assessment, research, and replication of the capstone experience be conducted to identify the benefits and drawbacks of student participation. Higher education’s reliance on what works rather than what could work limits innovation within the academic curriculum, as evidenced by the continued predominance of course-based capstone experiences. This is not to imply course-based capstone experiences do not work; rather, it calls into question whether other culminating experiences may work better. It is only through continued assessment and innovation (and the assessment of innovation) that these types of questions can be answered to broaden our understanding of the senior capstone experience.

Implications | 29

31

Appendix A: Survey Methodology

PopulationOur population of interest for the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences was

the campus representative who was the most knowledgable on the senior capstone experience, including (a) chief academic officers; (b) chief executive officers; (c) chief student affairs officers; and/or (d) the primary campus representative for career services, planning, and placement at region-ally accredited, not-for-profit, undergraduate-serving institutions of higher education within the United States. This population was pulled from the electronic edition of the 2011 Higher Educa-tion Directory. Though the access population were likely well informed about their institution’s senior capstone experience, they were asked to forward the survey to the individual on campus who would be most appropriate to complete this survey.

Survey AdministrationThe survey was created and constructed by the National Resource Center for The First-Year

Experience and Students in Transition (NRC). The dissemination and administration of the survey instrument was conducted by Campus Labs (formally StudentVoice), a web-based survey technology program for assessing student involvement, learning outcomes, and strategic planning efforts. In addition, Campus Labs oversaw the general data management and housed the survey link.

On June 29, 2011, the survey was launched and an invitation to participate was sent via e-mail to 3,178 verified chief academic officers. Nonverified or undeliverable e-mails were omitted from participation. The invitation to participate included three primary components: (a) the NRC’s definition of the senior capstone course or experience; (b) a confirmation the survey respondent was the most informed about their institution’s senior capstone experience, and if not, instructions to forward the invitation on to another campus individual more knowledgeable on the capstone experience; and (c) detailed survey instructions and a link to the survey.

Following the initial launch to chief academic officers, a reminder e-mail was sent to nonrespondents on July 8. Three additional waves of invitations and reminders were administered to institutions that had not yet responded. These three waves included (a) a July 13 invitation to chief executive officers (n = 3,516), followed by a reminder e-mail to nonrespondents on July 20; (b) a July 27 invitation to chief student affairs officers (n = 2,586), followed by a reminder e-mail to nonrespondents on August, 4; and finally (c) an August 11 invitation to the primary campus representative for career services, planning, and placement (n = 1,634), followed by a reminder e-mail to nonrespondents on August, 16. In addition, one final reminder was sent to all primary campus representatives for career services, planning, and placement nonrespondents on August 29 upon the request for an extended deadline. The survey administration ended, and the link was closed on September 5.


A total of 276 institutions participated in the survey administration, indicating a 7.8% re-sponse rate—a lower bounds response considering the web-based survey format. Though similar in scope and administration, the response rate was substantially lower than the 40.5% response rate from the NRC’s most recent administration of the National Survey of First-Year Seminars (Padgett & Keup, 2011) but more comparable to the 315 valid responses obtained from the NRC’s 2008 National Survey of Sophomore-Year Initiatives (Keup, Gahagan, & Goodwin, 2010). Many hypotheses could be generated as to the low response rate on the survey, though feedback and anecdotal evidence passed along during the survey administration suggest the ubiquitous use of senior capstone experiences across college campuses and the lack of a central office overseeing these experiences may have been factors. Nonetheless, of the 276 total respondents to the survey, 268 institutions (97.1%) report offering a senior capstone experience while only 8 institutions (2.9%) reported they did not offer such an experience or did not know whether one was offered.

AnalysesThe analyses of the data were entirely conducted at the descriptive level. Appendix D provides

a comprehensive frequency distribution and percentages for each survey item. The frequencies were tabulated within the aggregate (total) and across institutional control, senior enrollment, and capstone type. It is important to note though the survey was administered to all undergraduate-serving institutions of higher education within the United States, the data provided within the frequency distributions and throughout most of this research report are primarily from four-year institutions (two-year institutions only completed survey items Q57 – Q59).

A number of recoding techniques were used to create the comparison groups found throughout the research report and the frequency distribution. The original measure of senior enrollment had a response set of 10 continuous iterations, ranging from less than 500 and increasing in intervals up to more than 5,000. Senior enrollment was collapsed into four categories because of the skewness of responses on the tail-ends of the distribution.

Furthermore, for comparative purposes, primary type of senior capstone experience was col-lapsed from a seven-item response set into four distinct categories: (a) discipline-based capstone course; (b) interdisciplinary capstone course; (c) senior thesis or undergraduate report; and (d) other noncourse experience. These categories were created because of the low responses from institutions who report the primary senior capstone experience on campus was a comprehensive examination; exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts; internship; or other. To produce a sufficient comparative category, these noncourse experiences were collapsed into one other category.

Statistical SignificanceGiven the comparative nature of the data presentation (e.g., public vs. private, enrollment,

capstone type), chi-square analyses could be conducted to test for significance across group type. However, for significance testing—specifically chi-square analyses—to be reliable, a large overall sample size and cell size (i.e., responses on each survey item) are required. Though the 276 cases in our sample is a respectable overall frequency to test for significance across groups, the variability across response sets produced extremely low cell sizes (below 10). Testing for significance with such low cell sizes may produce erroneous significant findings. As such, the findings reported throughout this research report are at the descriptive level and by no means infer any level of significant differences between groups.

33

Appendix B: Survey Instrument

2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone ExperiencesThis survey is dedicated to gathering information regarding senior capstone experiences. The sur-

vey should take 15-25 minutes to complete. You may exit the survey at any time and return, and your responses will be saved. If you would like a copy of your responses, you will need to print each page of your survey before exiting. Your responses are important to us. As such, we please ask for your response by September 5, 2011. Thank you for your participation.

1. Please provide the following background information:

❍ Full name of institution❍ City❍ State❍ Respondent’s name❍ Respondent’s title❍ Respondent’s e-mail address

2. Mark the appropriate category for your institution:

❍ Four-year institution❍ Two-year institution (Go to Q57)

3. Mark the appropriate category for your institution:

❍ Public❍ Private not-for-profit❍ Private for-profit

4. Is your college or university a special-serving institution?

❍ Yes, Hispanic Serving Institution❍ Yes, Historically Black College or University❍ Yes, Tribal College❍ Yes, Women’s College❍ Yes, other (please specify)❍ No


5. What was the approximate number of enrolled seniors (senior status is typically defined by credit-hours obtained) at your institution during the academic year 2010-2011?

❍ Less than 500❍ 501-1,000❍ 1,001-1,500❍ 1,501-2,000❍ 2,001-2,500❍ 2,501-3,000❍ 3,001-3,500 ❍ 3,501-4,000 ❍ 4,001-5,000 ❍ More than 5,000

The senior capstone experience is defined as a culminating course or project that is discipline-based or interdisciplinary; the course and/or experience concludes during the final year of study and is reserved for senior students (senior status is typically defined by credit-hours obtained).

Discipline-based capstone courses enroll seniors from the same discipline/major. Interdisciplinary capstone courses are not dependent on a specific discipline and are inclusive of more than one discipline/major.

Project-based experiences are not dependent on a specific discipline or course and typically have a primary project as an end-product to the experience (e.g., internship, senior thesis).

6. Did your institution—at any department or division level—offer one or more senior capstone experience(s) during the 2010-2011 academic year?

❍ Yes❍ No (Go to Q52)❍ I don’t know. (Go to Q52)

7. What is the approximate percentage of seniors who enrolled/participated in a senior capstone experience(s) on your campus?

❍ Less than 10%❍ 10%-19%❍ 20%-29%❍ 30%-39%❍ 40%-49%❍ 50%-59%❍ 60%-69% ❍ 70%-79% ❍ 80%-89% ❍ 90%-99% ❍ 100% ❍ I don’t know.

8. Approximately how many years has a senior capstone experience(s) been offered on your campus?

❍ 1 year or less❍ 2 years❍ 3-10 years❍ More than 10 years

9. Select the senior capstone experience(s) that best describes the course/project that exists on your campus: (Check all that apply.)

❍ Discipline-based capstone course❍ Interdisciplinary capstone course❍ Comprehensive exam❍ Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts❍ Internship❍ Senior thesis/undergraduate research paper❍ Other (please specify)

10. If you offered more than one senior capstone experience, select the one with the highest total senior enrollment on your campus during the 2010-2011 academic year:

❍ Discipline-based capstone course❍ Interdisciplinary capstone course❍ Comprehensive exam❍ Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts❍ Internship❍ Senior thesis/undergraduate research paper❍ Other (please specify)

11. What discipline composes the discipline-based capstone course with the highest total senior enrollment on your campus?

❍ Applied science (e.g., education, engineering, journalism)❍ Business❍ Formal sciences (e.g., computer sciences, mathematics)❍ Humanities (e.g., history, language arts, literature)❍ Law❍ Natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics)❍ Performing arts (e.g., visual arts, music, dance) ❍ Pre-medicine ❍ Social sciences (e.g., political science, psychology, sociology) ❍ Other (please specify)

Appendix B | 35


12. What disciplines compose the senior capstone course or experience with the highest total senior enrollment on your campus? (Check all that apply.)

❍ Applied science (e.g., education, engineering, journalism)❍ Business❍ Formal sciences (e.g., computer sciences, mathematics)❍ Humanities (e.g., history, language arts, literature)❍ Law❍ Natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics)❍ Performing arts (e.g., visual arts, music, dance) ❍ Pre-medicine ❍ Social sciences (e.g., political science, psychology, sociology) ❍ Other (please specify)

13. You selected a senior capstone project as your senior capstone experience with the highest total senior enrollment on your campus during the 2010-2011 academic year. Does this senior capstone project have a course component (i.e., are students required to attend an instructor-led class as part of the project)?

❍ Yes❍ No (Go to Q55)

Please answer the remaining questions for the senior capstone course or experience you selected as the highest total senior enrollment during the 2010-2011 academic year.14. Select the three most important course objectives for the senior capstone course or experience:

❍ Ability to conduct scholarly research❍ Ability to perform independently❍ Appreciation of discipline(s)❍ Career preparation❍ Certification preparation❍ Preparation into graduate school❍ Increase critical thinking/analytical skills/problem-solving skills ❍ Increase connections with peers ❍ Increase satisfaction with academic discipline ❍ Increase satisfaction with institution ❍ Increase satisfaction with instructor ❍ Develop out-of-class student-instructor interaction(s) ❍ Life skills❍ Persistence to graduation❍ Professional development (e.g., teamwork, leadership)❍ Proficiency in oral communication❍ Proficiency in written communication❍ Promote use of campus services❍ Other (please specify)

15. Select the three most important topics that compose the content of the senior capstone course or experience:

❍ Career development❍ Certification readiness❍ Conducting scholarly research❍ Critical thinking/analytical skills/problem-solving skills❍ Discipline-specific topic❍ Diversity issues❍ Engaged alumni/alumni opportunities ❍ Ethical issues ❍ Financial literacy ❍ Graduate school application process ❍ Leadership skills ❍ Oral communication skills ❍ Relationship skills ❍ Teamwork/group work ❍ Technology skills ❍ Writing skills ❍ Other (please specify)

16. Please select the final component/end-product that is required to complete the senior capstone course or experience: (Check all that apply.)

❍ Certification within career❍ Comprehensive exam❍ Exhibit of art/music performance/recital❍ Final examination❍ Final presentation❍ Final project❍ Graduate school application ❍ Portfolio – comprehensive curricular (e.g., ePortfolio) ❍ Résumé ❍ Undergraduate research paper/thesis ❍ No final component/end-product ❍ Other (please specify)

Appendix B | 37


17. Please indicate which of the following practices are incorporated into the senior capstone course or experience: (Check all that apply.)

❍ Communication of high expectations❍ Cooperative learning❍ Course is academically challenging❍ Diversity experiences❍ Emphasis on time on task and submitting work❍ Instructor encouragement of active learning❍ Integrative learning (between courses or between coursework and life) ❍ Quality of classroom interactions with instructor ❍ Quality of nonclassroom interactions with instructor ❍ Positive peer interactions ❍ Prompt feedback from instructor ❍ Use of higher order exams and assignments ❍ Other (please specify)

18. Which students, by category, are required to take the senior capstone course or experience? (Check all that apply.)

❍ Certain majors❍ First-generation students❍ Honors students❍ International students❍ Learning community participants❍ Non-traditional-aged students❍ Student athletes ❍ Students within specific disciplines ❍ Transfer students ❍ None are required to take it. ❍ All seniors are required to take it. ❍ Other (please specify)

19. What is the approximate class size of each senior capstone course or experience section?

❍ 10 students or fewer❍ 11-15❍ 16-19❍ 20-24❍ 25-30❍ More than 30 (please indicate)

20. Please indicate the approximate number of sections of this senior capstone course or experience that were offered during the 2010-2011 academic year:

❍ 1-10❍ 11-20❍ 21-30❍ 31-40❍ 41-50❍ 51-60❍ 61-70 ❍ 71-80 ❍ 81-90 ❍ 91-100 ❍ More than 100

21. What is the typical length of a section of the senior capstone course or experience?

❍ Half a semester❍ One quarter❍ One semester❍ One year❍ Other (please specify)

22. How is the senior capstone course or experience graded?

❍ No grade❍ Pass/fail❍ Letter grade❍ Other (please specify)

23. Does the senior capstone course or experience carry academic credit?

❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.

24. How many credits does the senior capstone course or experience carry?

❍ 1❍ 2❍ 3❍ 4❍ 5❍ More than 5

Appendix B | 39


25. How is the senior capstone course or experience credit applied? (Check all that apply.)❍ As an elective❍ Toward general education requirements❍ Toward major requirements❍ Other (please specify)

26. How many total classroom contact hours are there per week in the senior capstone course or experience?

❍ 1❍ 2❍ 3❍ 4❍ 5 ❍ More than 5

27. Are any sections of the senior capstone course/experience linked to one or more other courses?

❍ Yes❍ No ❍ I don’t know.

28. Do any sections incorporate online components?


29. Please describe the online components that are included in the course:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

30. Are there any online-only sections?


31. Please indicate the approximate percentage of online-only sections:

❍ Less than 10%❍ 10%-19%❍ 20%-29%❍ 30%-39%❍ 40%-49%❍ 50%-59%❍ 60%-69% ❍ 70%-79% ❍ 80%-89% ❍ 90%-99% ❍ 100%

32. Please list up to three elements or aspects of your senior capstone course or experience that you consider innovative or especially successful:1. ______________________________________________________________________2. ______________________________________________________________________3. ______________________________________________________________________

33. Who is the primary instructor of the senior capstone course or experience? (Check all that apply.)

❍ Academic affairs professionals❍ Adjunct faculty❍ Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty❍ Graduate students❍ Student affairs professionals❍ Tenure-track faculty❍ Undergraduate students ❍ Other (please specify)

34. If undergraduate students assist in the senior capstone course or experience, what is their role? (Check all that apply.)

❍ They teach independently.❍ They teach as a part of a team.❍ They assist the instructor, but do not teach.❍ The role is determined by the instructor.❍ Other (please specify)

Appendix B | 41


35. Are any seniors intentionally placed in senior capstone course or experience sections taught by their academic advisors?


36. What is the approximate percentage of students placed in sections with their academic advisors?


37. Indicate the approximate percentage of sections that are team taught:

❍ Less than 10%❍ 10%-19%❍ 20%-29%❍ 30%-39%❍ 40%-49%❍ 50%-59%❍ 60%-69% ❍ 70%-79% ❍ 80%-89% ❍ 90%-99% ❍ 100% ❍ I don’t know. ❍ No sections are team taught.

38. Is instructor training offered for senior capstone course or experience instructors?


39. Is instructor training required for senior capstone course or experience instructors?


40. How long is new instructor training?

❍ Half a day or less❍ 1 day❍ 2 days❍ 3 days❍ 4 days❍ 1 week❍ Other (please specify)

41. What campus unit directly administers the senior capstone course or experience?

❍ Academic affairs❍ Academic department(s) (please list)❍ Career center❍ College or school (e.g., college of liberal arts)❍ Office of alumni relations❍ Senior program office❍ Student affairs ❍ Other (please specify)

42. Is there a dean/director/coordinator of the senior capstone course or experience?


43. Does the dean/director/coordinator have another position on campus?


44. The dean/director/coordinator’s other campus role is as a/an: (Check all that apply.)

❍ Academic affairs administrator❍ Faculty member❍ Student affairs administrator❍ Other (please specify)

Appendix B | 43


45. Has your senior capstone course or experience been formally assessed or evaluated since spring 2008?

❍ Yes❍ No (Go to Q62)❍ I don’t know. (Go to Q62)

46. What type of assessment or evaluation was conducted on your senior capstone course or experience? (Check all that apply.)

❍ Accreditation❍ Analysis of institutional data (e.g., GPA, retention rates, persistence to graduation)❍ Focus groups with instructors❍ Focus groups with students❍ Individual interviews with instructors❍ Individual interviews with students❍ Student course evaluation ❍ Survey instrument (national or local)

47. What type of survey instrument did your institution use to assess or evaluate the senior capstone course or experience? (Check all that apply.)

❍ A locally developed (i.e., home-grown or direct) survey❍ A national survey (e.g., NSSE, CCSSE, CIRP, EBI)❍ I don’t know.

48. If you used a national survey, please identify the survey(s): (Check all that apply.)

❍ Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) College Senior Survey❍ National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)❍ Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (WNS)❍ Other (please specify)

49. Please describe any other types of assessment or evaluation that were conducted:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

50. Select three outcome(s) that were measured using the assessment(s) or evaluation(s) listed above:

❍ Connection to the discipline(s)❍ Connections with peers❍ Critical thinking/analytical skills/problem-solving skills❍ Employment after college❍ Entrance into graduate school❍ Grade point average❍ Oral communication ❍ Out-of-class student-instructor interaction ❍ Persistence to graduation ❍ Satisfaction with campus services ❍ Satisfaction with institution ❍ Satisfaction with instructor ❍ Teamwork/group work ❍ Written communication ❍ Other (please specify)

51. Please describe the most significant findings from your assessment and evaluation of senior capstone course or experience outcomes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

52. If you did not administer a senior capstone experience on your campus during the prior aca-demic year, please indicate the reason:

❍ Lack of funding❍ Lack of faculty/staff/administration buy-in❍ Limited time❍ Senior capstone experiences are not an institutional priority.❍ Other (please specify)

53. If you did not administer a senior capstone experience on your campus during the prior academic year, does your institution plan to initiate one?

❍ Yes, in the next year❍ Yes, in the next 2-4 years❍ Yes, in the next 5 or more years❍ No❍ I don’t know.

Appendix B | 45


54. If your institution is planning to initiate a senior capstone experience, please indicate which capstone experience your institution is considering: (Check all that apply.)

❍ Discipline-based capstone course❍ Interdisciplinary capstone course❍ Comprehensive exam❍ Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts❍ Internship❍ Senior thesis/undergraduate research paper❍ Unknown ❍ Other (please specify)

55. You selected a senior capstone project with no course component as your senior capstone ex-perience with the highest total senior enrollment on your campus during the 2010-2011 academic year. Could you please describe your senior capstone project in greater detail (for example, is the project graded, do you establish any learning outcomes, do you assess or evaluate the project)?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

56. May a National Resource Center research staff member contact you to discuss your senior capstone project?

❍ Yes❍ No

The capstone experience is defined as a culminating course or project that is discipline-based or inter-disciplinary during the students’ last year of study.57. Did your institution —at any department or division level —offer one or more capstone experience(s) during the 2010-2011 academic year?


58. Select the capstone experience(s) that best describes the course or project that exist on your campus: (Check all that apply.)

❍ Discipline-based capstone course❍ Interdisciplinary capstone course❍ Certification within career❍ Comprehensive exam❍ Exhibition of performing, musical, or visual arts❍ Final presentation❍ Internship ❍ Portfolio ❍ Preparation for transfer to four-year institution ❍ Senior thesis/undergraduate research paper ❍ Service-learning/community service project ❍ Other (please specify)

59. What is the approximate percentage of students who enrolled/participated in a capstone experience(s) on your campus?


60. Could you please describe your course or project in greater detail for the capstone experience with the highest total student enrollment during the 2010-2011 academic year (for example, is there a required course component, is the course or project graded, do you establish any learning outcomes, who instructs the course or project, do you assess or evaluate the course or project, etc.)?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B | 47


61. May a National Resource Center research staff member contact you to discuss your capstone experience?

❍ Yes❍ No

62. It is our practice to make available specific and general information gathered from this survey. In general, findings from the survey are reported in aggregate, but we may identify individual institutions that have agreed to allow their responses to be shared on request. Please select the appropriate response.

❍ You may share my survey responses.❍ Please do not share my survey responses.

49

Institution City StateAlbany State University Albany GeorgiaAllegheny College Meadville PennsylvaniaAnderson University Anderson IndianaArizona Christian University Phoenix ArizonaAugustana College Rock Island IllinoisBaptist Bible College Springfield MissouriBellarmine University Louisville KentuckyBethany College Bethany West VirginiaBluffton University Bluffton OhioBrenau University Gainesville GeorgiaBrandeis University Waltham MassachusettsBryn Athyn College Bryn Athyn PennsylvaniaCalifornia State University, Fullerton Fullerton CaliforniaCalifornia State University, San Marcos San Marcos CaliforniaChatham University Pittsburgh PennsylvaniaClarkson University Potsdam New YorkCleary University Ann Arbor MichiganCollege of Charleston Charleston South CarolinaCollege of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University Collegeville MinnesotaCollege of the Desert Palm Desert CaliforniaCopper Mountain College Joshua Tree CaliforniaCornerstone University Grand Rapids MichiganDavis College Toledo OhioDillard University New Orleans Louisiana

Appendix C: Respondents to the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences 4

4 This is a partial list (n = 127) of total respondents (N = 276). Institutions were provided the opportu-nity to opt-out of being publicly identified as a survey respondent.


Institution City StateDuke University Durham North CarolinaElon University Elon North CarolinaEmporia State University Emporia KansasEvangel University Springfield MissouriFamily of Faith College Shawnee OklahomaFlorida State University Tallahassee FloridaFranklin Pierce University Rindge New HampshireFrostburg State University Frostburg MarylandGettysburg College Gettysburg PennsylvaniaGrand Valley State University Allendale MichiganHanover College Hanover IndianaHendrix College Conway ArkansasHollins University Roanoke VirginiaHoly Cross College Notre Dame IndianaHope College Holland MichiganHorry Georgetown Technical College Conway South CarolinaIndian River State College Fort Pierce FloridaIndiana Tech Fort Wayne IndianaIndiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana PennsylvaniaIsothermal Community College Spindale North CarolinaJ. F. Ingram State Technical College Deatsville AlabamaKalamazoo College Kalamazoo MichiganKentucky Christian University Grayson KentuckyLaguna College of Art and Design Laguna Beach CaliforniaLake Forest College Lake Forest IllinoisLangston University Langston OklahomaLanier Technical College Oakwood GeorgiaLaredo Community College Laredo TexasLawrence University Appleton WisconsinLeMoyne-Owen College Memphis TennesseeLinfield College McMinnville OregonMadisonville Community College Madisonville KentuckyMadonna University Livonia MichiganMartin University Indianapolis IndianaMid Michigan Community College Harrison MichiganMid-Plains Community College North Platte NebraskaMontreat College Montreat North CarolinaMoody Bible Institute Chicago Illinois

Institution City StateMorningside College Sioux City IowaMount Mercy University Cedar Rapids IowaNassau Community College Garden City New YorkNational University San Diego CaliforniaNew College of Florida Sarasota FloridaNew England College Henniker New HampshireNorth Central Michigan College Petoskey MichiganNorth Dakota State University Fargo North DakotaNorthern State University Aberdeen South DakotaNorthwest State Community College Archbold OhioNorthwest University Kirkland WashingtonNorthwestern College Chicago IllinoisOral Roberts University Tulsa OklahomaPacific Lutheran University Tacoma WashingtonPatten University Oakland CaliforniaPaul Quinn College Dallas TexasPoint University (formerly Atlanta Christian College) East Point GeorgiaPolk State College Winter Haven FloridaPortland State University Portland OregonPrescott College Prescott ArizonaRochester Community and Technical College Rochester MinnesotaSaint Joseph’s College Rensselaer IndianaSaint Michael’s College Colchester VermontSan Juan College Farmington New MexicoSanta Fe Community College Santa Fe New MexicoShawnee State University Portsmouth OhioSojourner-Douglass College Baltimore MarylandSouth Florida Community College Avon Park FloridaSouthern West Virginia Community and Technical College

Mount Gay West Virginia

St. Ambrose University Davenport IowaSterling College Craftsbury Common VermontTexas Tech University Lubbock TexasThe City College of The City University of New York New York New YorkTrinity Christian College Palos Heights IllinoisTrinity College of Nursing and Health Sciences Rock Island IllinoisTrinity International University Deerfield IllinoisTulane University New Orleans Louisiana

Appendix C | 51


Institution City StateUniversity of Cincinnati Cincinnati OhioUniversity of Louisville Louisville KentuckyUniversity of Maine at Augusta Augusta MaineUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst MassachusettsUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell MassachusettsUniversity of Massachusetts School of Medicine Worcester MassachusettsUniversity of Mount Union Alliance OhioUniversity of Nevada, Reno Reno NevadaUniversity of North Carolina Wilmington Wilmington North CarolinaUniversity of North Texas Denton TexasUniversity of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PennsylvaniaUniversity of South Carolina Aiken Aiken South CarolinaUniversity of Tampa Tampa FloridaUniversity of the District of Columbia Washington District of

ColumbiaUniversity of the Southwest Hobbs New MexicoUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison Madison WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin - Platteville Platteville WisconsinUniversity of Wyoming Laramie WyomingUrsuline College Pepper Pike OhioValparaiso University Valparaiso IndianaWake Technical Community College Raleigh North CarolinaWarner Pacific College Portland OregonWarren Wilson College Swannanoa North CarolinaWest Hills College Lemoore Lemoore CaliforniaWest Kentucky Community and Technical College Paducah KentuckyWestern Carolina University Cullowhee North CarolinaWestern State College of Colorado Gunnison ColoradoWorcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester Massachusetts

53

Appendix D: Comprehensive Frequency Distribution Tables for the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q6

Did

your

insti

tutio

n, at

any d

epar

tmen

t or d

ivisi

on le

vel,

offe

r one

or m

ore s

enio

r cap

ston

e exp

erie

nce(

s) d

urin

g the

201

0-20

11 ac

adem

ic ye

ar?

Yes

9895

.216

698

.211

597

.553

98.2

4792

.247

100.

026

897

.1N

o3

2.9

21.

21

0.9

11.

93

5.9

00.

05

1.8

I don

’t kn

ow.

21.

91

0.6

21.

70

0.0

12.

00

0.0

31.

1

Tota

l10

310

0.0

169

100.

011

810

0.0

5410

0.0

5110

0.0

4710

0.0

276

100.

0

Q7

Wha

t is t

he ap

prox

imat

e per

cent

age o

f sen

iors

who

enro

lled/

part

icip

ated

in a

seni

or ca

psto

ne ex

perie

nce(

s) o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s?

Less

than

10%

2

2.3

32.

03

2.7

00.

01

2.6

12.

45

2.1

10%

-19%

910

.24

2.6

21.

82

4.3

37.

75

12.2

135.

420

%-2

9%9

10.2

85.

26

5.4

36.

45

12.8

24.

917

7.0

30%

-39%

66.

83

2.0

32.

71

2.1

37.

72

4.9

93.

740

%-4

9%3

3.4

42.

62

1.8

12.

11

2.6

37.

37

2.9

50%

-59%

89.

15

3.3

65.

43

6.4

410

.30

0.0

135.

460

%-6

9%4

4.6

106.

55

4.5

48.

52

5.1

37.

314

5.8

70%

-79%

44.

69

5.8

65.

41

2.1

00.

05

12.2

135.

480

%-8

9%6

6.8

149.

112

10.8

36.

43

7.7

12.

420

8.2

90%

-99%

66.

815

9.7

76.

35

10.6

512

.84

9.8

218.

610

0%17

19.3

6844

.250

45.1

1940

.48

20.5

819

.586

35.4

I don

’t kn

ow.

1415

.911

7.1

98.

15

10.6

410

.37

17.1

2510

.3

Tota

l88

100.

015

410

0.0

111

100.

047

100.

039

100.

041

100.

024

310

0.0

Q8

App

roxi

mat

ely h

ow m

any y

ears

has

a se

nior

caps

tone

expe

rienc

e(s)

bee

n of

fere

d on

your

cam

pus?

1 ye

ar o

r les

s2

2.3

00.

01

0.9

00.

00

0.0

12.

42

0.8

2 ye

ars

00.

01

0.6

10.

90

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

43-

10 ye

ars

2933

.353

33.1

4136

.617

33.3

1331

.011

26.8

8433

.6M

ore t

han

10 ye

ars

5664

.410

666

.369

61.6

3466

.729

69.1

2970

.716

365

.2

Tota

l87

100.

016

010

0.0

112

100.

051

100.

042

100.

041

100.

025

010

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 5

5

All R

espo

nses

by

Inst

itutio

nal C

ontr

ol a

nd C

lass

Siz

e

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q9

Sele

ct th

e sen

ior c

apst

one e

xper

ienc

e(s)

that

bes

t des

crib

es th

e cou

rse/

proj

ect t

hat e

xist

on

your

cam

pus:

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly)

Disc

iplin

e-ba

sed

caps

tone

cour

se84

85.7

140

84.3

9986

.147

88.7

3880

.938

80.9

227

84.7

Inte

rdisc

iplin

ary

caps

tone

cour

se35

35.7

5331

.933

28.7

2037

.716

34.0

1940

.489

33.2

Com

preh

ensiv

e exa

m15

15.3

3923

.522

19.1

1528

.35

10.6

1021

.354

20.1

Exhi

bitio

n of

pe

rfor

min

g, m

usic

al,

or vi

sual

arts

5152

.010

462

.764

55.7

3667

.926

55.3

2757

.415

658

.2

Inte

rnsh

ip48

49.0

7645

.856

48.7

2547

.218

38.3

2348

.912

546

.6

Seni

or th

esis

or

unde

rgra

duat

e re

sear

ch p

aper

5556

.111

770

.571

61.7

3871

.731

66.0

3063

.817

364

.6

O

ther

(p

leas

e spe

cify

)5

5.1

148.

46

5.2

47.

56

12.8

36.

419

7.1

Q10

If yo

u of

fere

d m

ore t

han

one s

enio

r cap

ston

e exp

erie

nce,

sele

ct th

e one

with

the h

ighe

st to

tal s

enio

r enr

ollm

ent o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s dur

ing t

he 2

010-

2011

acad

emic

year

:

Disc

iplin

e-ba

sed

caps

tone

cour

se64

70.3

8653

.462

54.9

3159

.625

59.5

2969

.115

259

.6

Inte

rdisc

iplin

ary

caps

tone

cour

se10

11.0

2314

.315

13.3

611

.55

11.9

614

.333

12.9

Com

preh

ensiv

e exa

m1

1.1

53.

15

4.4

11.

90

0.0

00.

06

2.4

Exhi

bitio

n of

pe

rfor

min

g, m

usic

al,

or vi

sual

arts

11.

12

1.2

21.

81

1.9

00.

00

0.0

31.

2

Inte

rnsh

ip4

4.4

63.

75

4.4

11.

92

4.8

24.

810

3.9

Seni

or th

esis

or

unde

rgra

duat

e re

sear

ch p

aper

55.

527

16.8

1513

.310

19.2

511

.93

7.1

3312

.9

Oth

er6

6.6

127.

59

8.0

23.

95

11.9

24.

818

7.1

To

tal

9110

0.0

161

100.

011

310

0.0

5210

0.0

4210

0.0

4210

0.0

255

100.

0

Appendix D | 55

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 5

6

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

54

56 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences Se

nior

clas

s siz

ePu

blic

Priv

ate

Less

than

500

501-

1,00

01,

001-

3,00

03,

001+

Tota

lIt

emSu

rvey

que

stio

nFr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%

Q11

Wha

t disc

iplin

e com

pose

s the

disc

iplin

e-ba

sed

caps

tone

cour

se w

ith th

e hig

hest

tota

l sen

ior e

nrol

lmen

t on

your

cam

pus?

App

lied

scie

nce

1626

.212

14.3

914

.57

24.1

626

.16

20.7

2819

.1Bu

sines

s21

34.4

2631

.023

37.1

620

.76

26.1

1241

.448

32.7

Form

al sc

ienc

es0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Hum

aniti

es

11.

614

16.7

812

.95

17.2

28.

70

0.0

1510

.2La

w0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Nat

ural

scie

nces

34.

99

10.7

69.

74

13.8

00.

01

3.5

128.

2Pe

rfor

min

g art

s1

1.6

11.

22

3.2

00.

00

0.0

00.

02

1.4

Prem

edic

ine

11.

60

0.0

00.

00

0.0

14.

40

0.0

10.

7So

cial

scie

nces

1016

.414

16.7

711

.36

20.7

417

.45

17.2

2416

.3O

ther

813

.18

9.5

711

.31

3.5

417

.45

17.2

1711

.6

Tota

l61

100.

084

100.

062

100.

029

100.

023

100.

029

100.

014

710

0.0

Q12

Wha

t disc

iplin

es co

mpo

se th

e sen

ior c

apst

one c

ours

e or e

xper

ienc

e (in

terd

iscip

linar

y cap

ston

e cou

rse)

with

the h

ighe

st to

tal s

enio

r enr

ollm

ent o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s?

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly)

App

lied

scie

nce

220

.08

34.8

320

.04

66.7

120

.02

33.3

1030

.3Bu

sines

s6

60.0

730

.45

33.3

116

.75

100.

02

33.3

1339

.4Fo

rmal

scie

nces

110

.01

4.3

16.

70

0.0

00.

01

16.7

26.

1H

uman

ities

5

50.0

1252

.29

60.0

233

.34

80.0

233

.317

51.5

Law

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0N

atur

al sc

ienc

es4

40.0

626

.14

26.7

116

.73

60.0

233

.310

30.3

Perf

orm

ing a

rts

110

.06

26.1

320

.02

33.3

120

.01

16.7

721

.2Pr

emed

icin

e0

0.0

14.

31

6.7

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

3.0

Soci

al sc

ienc

es4

40.0

939

.15

33.3

350

.04

80.0

116

.713

39.4

Oth

er3

30.0

626

.15

33.3

00.

00

0.0

350

.09

27.3

Q13

Doe

s the

seni

or ca

psto

ne p

roje

ct h

ave a

cour

se co

mpo

nent

(are

stud

ents

requ

ired

to at

tend

an in

struc

tor-l

ed cl

ass a

s par

t of t

he p

roje

ct)?

Yes

1062

.531

62.0

2365

.77

46.7

872

.74

66.7

4262

.7N

o6

37.5

1938

.012

34.3

853

.33

27.3

233

.325

37.3

Tota

l16

100.

050

100.

035

100.

015

100.

011

100.

06

100.

067

100.

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 5

7

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

55

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q14

Sele

ct th

e thr

ee m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t cou

rse o

bjec

tives

for t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

Abi

lity t

o co

nduc

t sc

hola

rly re

sear

ch19

19.4

5432

.536

31.3

1324

.510

21.3

1225

.574

27.6

Abi

lity t

o pe

rfor

m

inde

pend

ently

1717

.330

18.1

2622

.67

13.2

1021

.37

14.9

5018

.7

App

reci

atio

n of

di

scip

line(

s)18

18.4

2816

.920

17.4

611

.38

17.0

1021

.347

17.5

Car

eer p

repa

ratio

n23

23.5

4225

.333

28.7

1120

.810

21.3

1225

.567

25.0

Cer

tific

atio

n pr

epar

atio

n2

2.0

63.

64

3.5

11.

92

4.3

12.

18

3.0

Prep

arat

ion

into

gr

adua

te sc

hool

22.

09

5.4

76.

12

3.8

12.

10

0.0

114.

1

Incr

ease

criti

cal

thin

king

, ana

lytic

al

skill

s, or

pro

blem

-so

lvin

g ski

lls

5455

.179

47.6

5749

.620

37.7

2655

.327

57.4

133

49.6

Incr

ease

conn

ectio

ns

with

pee

rs0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Incr

ease

satis

fact

ion

with

acad

emic

di

scip

line

22.

01

0.6

10.

90

0.0

12.

11

2.1

31.

1

Incr

ease

satis

fact

ion

with

insti

tutio

n0

0.0

10.

61

0.9

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

0.4

Incr

ease

satis

fact

ion

with

instr

ucto

r0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Dev

elop

out

-of-c

lass

st

uden

t-ins

truc

tor

inte

ract

ion(

s)

00.

04

2.4

32.

61

1.9

00.

00

0.0

41.

5

Life

-skill

s3

3.1

21.

23

2.6

00.

01

2.1

12.

15

1.9

Pers

isten

ce to

gr

adua

tion

00.

01

0.6

10.

90

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

4

Appendix D | 57

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 5

8

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

56


nior

clas

s siz

ePu

blic

Priv

ate

Less

than

500

501-

1,00

01,

001-

3,00

03,

001+

Tota

lIt

emSu

rvey

que

stio

nFr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%

Q14

Sele

ct th

e thr

ee m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t cou

rse o

bjec

tives

for t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Con

t.)

Prof

essio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

3333

.729

17.5

1815

.715

28.3

1225

.518

38.3

6323

.5

Prof

icie

ncy i

n or

al

com

mun

icat

ion

1010

.230

18.1

1916

.57

13.2

48.

58

17.0

4014

.9

Prof

icie

ncy i

n w

ritte

n co

mm

unic

atio

n20

20.4

4024

.129

25.2

917

.010

21.3

1123

.461

22.8

Prom

ote u

se o

f ca

mpu

s ser

vice

s0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

O

ther

99.

219

11.4

1412

.26

11.3

510

.63

6.4

2810

.4

Q15

Sele

ct th

e thr

ee m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t top

ics t

hat c

ompo

se th

e con

tent

of t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

Car

eer d

evel

opm

ent

1616

.327

16.3

2420

.94

7.5

919

.15

10.6

4416

.4C

ertif

icat

ion

read

ines

s4

4.1

53.

06

5.2

00.

02

4.3

12.

19

3.4

Con

duct

ing s

chol

arly

re

sear

ch19

19.4

5130

.735

30.4

1120

.812

25.5

1123

.471

26.5

Crit

ical

thin

king

, an

alyt

ical

skill

s, or

pr

oblem

-solv

ing s

kills

4748

.091

54.8

6455

.725

47.2

2042

.627

57.4

139

51.9

Disc

iplin

e-sp

ecifi

c to

pic

4343

.970

42.2

5043

.523

43.4

1736

.222

46.8

116

43.3

Div

ersit

y iss

ues

11.

02

1.2

21.

70

0.0

00.

01

2.1

31.

1En

gage

d al

umni

or

alum

ni o

ppor

tuni

ties

11.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

2.1

10.

4

Ethi

cal i

ssue

s5

5.1

2515

.117

14.8

59.

42

4.3

510

.630

11.2

Fina

ncia

l lite

racy

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0G

radu

ate s

choo

l ap

plic

atio

n pr

oces

s0

0.0

21.

21

0.9

11.

90

0.0

00.

02

0.7

Lead

ersh

ip sk

ills

1111

.210

6.0

108.

71

1.9

510

.67

14.9

238.

6O

ral c

omm

unic

atio

n sk

ills

66.

119

11.4

1412

.23

5.7

48.

53

6.4

259.

3

Rel

atio

nshi

p sk

ills

11.

02

1.2

32.

60

0.0

00.

00

0.0

31.

1Te

amw

ork

or g

roup

w

ork

2828

.617

10.2

1412

.26

11.3

817

.016

34.0

4516

.8

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 5

9

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

57

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q15

Sele

ct th

e thr

ee m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t top

ics t

hat c

ompo

se th

e con

tent

of t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Con

t.)

Tech

nolo

gy sk

ills

22.

07

4.2

43.

52

3.8

12.

12

4.3

93.

4W

ritin

g ski

lls13

13.3

4225

.328

24.3

1018

.99

19.1

817

.056

20.9

O

ther

1010

.27

4.2

43.

55

9.4

612

.82

4.3

176.

3

Q16

Plea

se se

lect

the f

inal

com

pone

nt/e

nd-p

rodu

ct th

at is

requ

ired

to co

mpl

ete t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

Cer

tific

atio

n w

ithin

ca

reer

77.

18

4.8

54.

32

3.8

48.

54

8.5

155.

6

Com

preh

ensiv

e exa

m11

11.2

2515

.115

13.0

815

.15

10.6

714

.936

13.4

Exhi

bit o

f art

, mus

ic

perf

orm

ance

, or r

ecita

l24

24.5

5130

.730

26.1

1732

.113

27.7

1225

.575

28.0

Fina

l exa

min

atio

n13

13.3

2012

.013

11.3

47.

55

10.6

1021

.333

12.3

Fina

l pre

sent

atio

n40

40.8

8651

.854

47.0

2649

.121

44.7

2246

.812

747

.4Fi

nal p

roje

ct52

53.1

9456

.663

54.8

3056

.625

53.2

2655

.314

754

.9G

radu

ate s

choo

l ap

plic

atio

n0

0.0

31.

82

1.7

00.

01

2.1

00.

03

1.1

Port

folio

- co

mpr

ehen

sive

curr

icul

ar

1818

.444

26.5

2925

.211

20.8

714

.913

27.7

6223

.1

Rés

umé

44.

114

8.4

108.

72

3.8

36.

43

6.4

186.

7U

nder

grad

uate

re

sear

ch p

aper

or

thes

is

3131

.672

43.4

4640

.020

37.7

1940

.416

34.0

104

38.8

No

final

com

pone

nt

or en

d-pr

oduc

t2

2.0

10.

61

0.9

00.

01

2.1

12.

13

1.1

O

ther

1010

.28

4.8

32.

64

7.5

510

.65

10.6

186.

7

Q17

Plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing p

ract

ices

are i

ncor

pora

ted

into

the s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

Com

mun

icat

ion

of

high

expe

ctat

ions

5253

.198

59.0

7060

.923

43.4

2451

.133

70.2

153

57.1

Coo

pera

tive l

earn

ing

4141

.860

36.1

4135

.717

32.1

1736

.226

55.3

103

38.4

Appendix D | 59

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

58


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q17

Plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing p

ract

ices

are i

ncor

pora

ted

into

the s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Con

t.)

Cou

rse i

s aca

dem

ical

ly

chal

lengi

ng47

48.0

9959

.668

59.1

2852

.821

44.7

3063

.814

855

.2

Div

ersit

y exp

erie

nces

1616

.322

13.3

1613

.95

9.4

510

.612

25.5

3814

.2

Emph

asis

on ti

me o

n ta

sk an

d su

bmitt

ing

wor

k

2323

.552

31.3

3227

.813

24.5

1429

.814

29.8

7628

.4

Instr

ucto

r en

cour

agem

ent o

f ac

tive l

earn

ing

4545

.975

45.2

5850

.418

34.0

2042

.622

46.8

121

45.1

Inte

grat

ive l

earn

ing

(bet

wee

n co

urse

s or

betw

een

cour

sew

ork

and

life)

5758

.210

362

.072

62.6

2445

.329

61.7

3268

.116

160

.1

Qua

lity o

f cla

ssroo

m

inte

ract

ions

with

in

struc

tor

2121

.450

30.1

3026

.115

28.3

1123

.413

27.7

7126

.5

Qua

lity o

f no

ncla

ssroo

m

inte

ract

ions

with

in

struc

tor

1111

.235

21.1

1916

.59

17.0

817

.09

19.1

4617

.2

Posit

ive p

eer

inte

ract

ions

3030

.656

33.7

3530

.416

30.2

919

.124

51.1

8732

.5

Prom

pt fe

edba

ck fr

om

instr

ucto

r21

21.4

4828

.930

26.1

1732

.16

12.8

1531

.970

26.1

Use

of h

ighe

r or

der e

xam

s and

as

signm

ents

2929

.651

30.7

3530

.415

28.3

1225

.516

34.0

8029

.9

O

ther

55.

14

2.4

00.

03

5.7

36.

43

6.4

93.

4

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

1

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

59

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q18

Whi

ch st

uden

ts, b

y cat

egor

y, ar

e req

uire

d to

take

the s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

Cer

tain

maj

ors

3939

.848

28.9

3429

.614

26.4

1736

.220

42.6

8832

.8Fi

rst-g

ener

atio

n st

uden

ts0

0.0

10.

61

0.9

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

0.4

Hon

ors s

tude

nts

2121

.417

10.2

108.

79

17.0

612

.812

25.5

3814

.2In

tern

atio

nal s

tude

nts

00.

01

0.6

10.

90

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

4Le

arni

ng co

mm

unity

pa

rtic

ipan

ts0

0.0

31.

81

0.9

00.

02

4.3

00.

03

1.1

Non

-trad

ition

al-a

ged

stud

ents

00.

01

0.6

10.

90

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

4

Stud

ent a

thle

tes

00.

02

1.2

10.

90

0.0

12.

10

0.0

20.

7St

uden

ts w

ithin

spe-

cific

disc

iplin

es15

15.3

2313

.915

13.0

815

.16

12.8

714

.938

14.2

Tran

sfer s

tude

nts

00.

01

0.6

10.

90

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

4N

one a

re re

quire

d to

ta

ke it

.0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

All

seni

ors a

re re

-qu

ired

to ta

ke it

.29

29.6

7645

.854

47.0

2139

.616

34.0

1531

.910

739

.9

O

ther

55.

14

2.4

32.

60

0.0

24.

33

6.4

93.

4

Q19

Wha

t is t

he ap

prox

imat

e cla

ss si

ze o

f eac

h se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce s

ectio

n?

10 st

uden

ts o

r few

er7

10.1

2519

.520

21.7

514

.73

9.1

25.

632

16.0

11-1

57

10.1

4635

.930

32.6

720

.611

33.3

616

.755

27.5

16-1

915

21.7

3023

.424

26.1

1029

.44

12.1

616

.745

22.5

20-2

416

23.2

2015

.614

15.2

720

.65

15.2

1027

.836

18.0

25-3

013

18.8

43.

12

2.2

38.

88

24.2

513

.918

9.0

Mor

e tha

n 30

11

15.9

32.

32

2.2

25.

92

6.1

719

.414

7.0

To

tal

6910

0.0

128

100.

092

100.

034

100.

033

100.

036

100.

020

010

0.0

Appendix D | 61

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

2

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

60


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q20

Plea

se in

dica

te th

e app

roxi

mat

e num

ber o

f sec

tions

of t

his s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce t

hat w

ere o

ffere

d du

ring t

he 2

010/

2011

acad

emic

year

:

1-10

2337

.158

47.5

5157

.311

39.3

1031

.38

23.5

8243

.911

-20

711

.327

22.1

2325

.83

10.7

515

.63

8.8

3418

.221

-30

58.

116

13.1

1011

.25

17.9

39.

42

5.9

2111

.231

-40

58.

19

7.4

44.

53

10.7

26.

36

17.7

158.

041

-50

914

.54

3.3

11.

13

10.7

618

.83

8.8

147.

551

-60

00.

01

0.8

00.

01

3.6

00.

00

0.0

10.

561

-70

00.

01

0.8

00.

00

0.0

13.

10

0.0

10.

571

-80

11.

60

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

2.9

10.

581

-90

34.

80

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

03

8.8

31.

691

-100

34.

84

3.3

00.

01

3.6

412

.52

5.9

73.

7M

ore t

han

100

69.

72

1.6

00.

01

3.6

13.

16

17.7

84.

3

Tota

l62

100.

012

210

0.0

8910

0.0

2810

0.0

3210

0.0

3410

0.0

187

100.

0

Q21

Wha

t is t

he ty

pica

l len

gth

of a

sect

ion

of th

e sen

ior c

apst

one c

ours

e or e

xper

ienc

e?

Hal

f a se

mes

ter

00.

01

0.8

11.

10

0.0

12.

90

0.0

21.

0O

ne q

uart

er3

4.3

32.

31

1.1

12.

82

5.9

25.

66

3.0

One

sem

este

r60

85.7

107

83.0

7683

.533

91.7

2676

.529

80.6

168

83.6

One

year

57.

19

7.0

88.

81

2.8

25.

93

8.3

147.

0O

ther

22.

99

7.0

55.

51

2.8

38.

82

5.6

115.

5

Tota

l70

100.

012

910

0.0

9110

0.0

3610

0.0

3410

0.0

3610

0.0

201

100.

0

Q22

How

is th

e sen

ior c

apst

one c

ours

e or e

xper

ienc

e gra

ded?

No

grad

e0

0.0

10.

81

1.1

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

0.5

Pass

/fai

l1

1.4

75.

44

4.4

00.

02

5.9

25.

68

4.0

Lett

er g

rade

6490

.111

589

.284

92.3

3391

.728

82.4

3186

.118

189

.6O

ther

68.

56

4.7

22.

23

8.3

411

.83

8.3

125.

9

Tota

l71

100.

012

910

0.0

9110

0.0

3610

0.0

3410

0.0

3610

0.0

202

100.

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

3

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

61

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q23

Doe

s the

seni

or ca

psto

ne co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e car

ry ac

adem

ic cr

edit?

Yes

7098

.612

798

.590

98.9

3597

.234

100.

036

97.3

200

98.5

No

11.

41

0.8

11.

10

0.0

00.

01

2.7

21.

0I d

on’t

know

.0

0.0

10.

80

0.0

12.

80

0.0

00.

01

0.5

To

tal

7110

0.0

129

100.

091

100.

036

100.

034

100.

037

100.

020

310

0.0

Q24

How

man

y cre

dits

doe

s the

seni

or ca

psto

ne co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e car

ry?

10

0.0

118.

86

6.7

25.

93

9.1

00.

011

5.6

21

1.5

21.

63

3.4

00.

00

0.0

00.

03

1.5

356

82.4

7963

.258

65.2

2367

.724

72.7

2880

.013

870

.44

22.

925

20.0

1719

.16

17.7

39.

11

2.9

2713

.85

11.

50

0.0

00.

00

0.0

13.

00

0.0

10.

5M

ore t

han

58

11.8

86.

45

5.6

38.

82

6.1

617

.116

8.2

To

tal

6810

0.0

125

100.

089

100.

034

100.

033

100.

035

100.

019

610

0.0

Q25

How

is th

e sen

ior c

apst

one c

ours

e or e

xper

ienc

e cre

dit a

pplie

d? (C

heck

all t

hat a

pply.

)

As a

n el

ectiv

e3

3.1

63.

62

1.7

35.

72

4.3

24.

39

3.4

Tow

ard

gene

ral

educ

atio

n re

quire

men

ts

1010

.232

19.3

2219

.15

9.4

612

.88

17.0

4215

.7

Tow

ard

maj

or

requ

irem

ents

6566

.310

160

.875

65.2

3056

.630

63.8

3063

.816

963

.1

O

ther

44.

12

1.2

10.

91

1.9

12.

13

6.4

62.

2

Appendix D | 63

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

4

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

62


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q26

How

man

y tot

al cl

assr

oom

cont

act h

ours

are t

here

per

wee

k in

the s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce?

11

1.5

108.

39

10.2

26.

51

3.2

00.

012

6.3

24

5.9

75.

86

6.8

13.

23

9.7

12.

811

5.8

355

80.9

8973

.663

71.6

2477

.423

74.2

3083

.314

575

.94

45.

97

5.8

55.

72

6.5

39.

71

2.8

115.

85

00.

02

1.7

11.

11

3.2

00.

00

0.0

21.

1M

ore t

han

54

5.9

65.

04

4.6

13.

21

3.2

411

.110

5.2

Tota

l68

100.

012

110

0.0

8810

0.0

3110

0.0

3110

0.0

3610

0.0

191

100.

0

Q27

Are

any s

ectio

ns o

f the

seni

or ca

psto

ne co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e lin

ked

to o

ne o

r mor

e oth

er co

urse

s?

Yes

2434

.346

36.2

2932

.214

40.0

824

.216

43.2

7035

.0N

o29

41.4

6248

.846

51.1

1542

.915

45.5

1643

.294

47.0

I don

’t kn

ow.

1724

.319

15.0

1516

.76

17.1

1030

.35

13.5

3618

.0

Tota

l70

100.

012

710

0.0

9010

0.0

3510

0.0

3310

0.0

3710

0.0

200

100.

0

Q28

Do

any s

ectio

ns in

corp

orat

e onl

ine c

ompo

nent

s?

Yes

3653

.742

32.8

3033

.312

34.3

1545

.520

55.6

7939

.9N

o10

14.9

4938

.333

36.7

1131

.48

24.2

719

.460

30.3

I don

’t kn

ow.

2131

.337

28.9

2730

.012

34.3

1030

.39

25.0

5929

.8

Tota

l67

100.

012

810

0.0

9010

0.0

3510

0.0

3310

0.0

3610

0.0

198

100.

0

Q30

Are

ther

e any

onl

ine-

only

sect

ions

?

Yes

1927

.113

10.2

99.

93

8.6

515

.214

37.8

3215

.9N

o33

47.1

105

82.0

7380

.229

82.9

2060

.615

40.5

140

69.7

I don

’t kn

ow.

1825

.710

7.8

99.

93

8.6

824

.28

21.6

2914

.4

Tota

l70

100.

012

810

0.0

9110

0.0

3510

0.0

3310

0.0

3710

0.0

201

100.

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

5

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

63

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q31

Plea

se in

dica

te th

e app

roxi

mat

e per

cent

age o

f onl

ine-

only

sect

ions

:

Less

than

10%

1473

.75

38.5

444

.43

100.

04

80.0

750

.019

59.4

10%

-19%

315

.80

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

03

21.4

39.

420

%-2

9%0

0.0

17.

71

11.1

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

3.1

30%

-39%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

040

%-4

9%1

5.3

323

.12

22.2

00.

01

20.0

17.

14

12.5

50%

-59%

15.

31

7.7

111

.10

0.0

00.

01

7.1

26.

360

%-6

9%0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

70%

-79%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

080

%-8

9%0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

90%

-99%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

010

0%0

0.0

323

.11

11.1

00.

00

0.0

214

.33

9.4

To

tal

1910

0.0

1310

0.0

910

0.0

310

0.0

510

0.0

1410

0.0

3210

0.0

Q33

Who

is th

e prim

ary i

nstr

ucto

r of t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

Aca

dem

ic af

fairs

pr

ofes

siona

ls3

3.1

84.

86

5.2

23.

83

6.4

00.

011

4.1

Adj

unct

facu

lty11

11.2

1710

.27

6.1

35.

78

17.0

919

.128

10.4

Full-

time,

non-

tenu

re-

trac

k fa

culty

1212

.237

22.3

2219

.18

15.1

817

.011

23.4

4918

.3

Gra

duat

e stu

dent

s2

2.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

24.

32

0.7

Stud

ent a

ffairs

pr

ofes

siona

ls0

0.0

21.

21

0.9

00.

01

2.1

00.

02

0.7

Tenu

re-tr

ack

facu

lty62

63.3

9154

.865

56.5

2852

.827

57.4

3063

.815

557

.8U

nder

grad

uate

st

uden

ts0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

O

ther

77.

113

7.8

97.

82

3.8

48.

54

8.5

207.

5

Appendix D | 65

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

6

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

64


nior

clas

s siz

ePu

blic

Priv

ate

Less

than

500

501-

1,00

01,

001-

3,00

03,

001+

Tota

lIt

emSu

rvey

que

stio

nFr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%

Q34

If un

derg

radu

ate s

tude

nts a

ssist

in th

e sen

ior c

apst

one c

ours

e or e

xper

ienc

e, w

hat i

s the

ir ro

le? (

Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

The

y tea

ch

inde

pend

ently

.0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

The

y tea

ch as

a pa

rt o

f a t

eam

.0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

The

y ass

ist th

e in

struc

tor,

but d

o no

t te

ach.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

The

role

is d

eter

min

ed

by th

e ins

truc

tor.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

O

ther

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

Q35

Are

any s

enio

rs in

tent

iona

lly p

lace

d in

seni

or ca

psto

ne co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e sec

tions

taug

ht b

y the

ir ac

adem

ic ad

viso

rs?

Yes

34.

412

9.6

1112

.42

5.9

00.

02

5.6

157.

7N

o48

70.6

9676

.869

77.5

2573

.523

74.2

2466

.714

473

.9I d

on’t

know

.17

25.0

1713

.69

10.1

720

.68

25.8

1027

.836

18.5

To

tal

6810

0.0

125

100.

089

100.

034

100.

031

100.

036

100.

019

510

0.0

Q36

Wha

t is t

he ap

prox

imat

e per

cent

age o

f stu

dent

s pla

ced

in se

ctio

ns w

ith th

eir a

cade

mic

advi

sors

?

Less

than

10%

266

.70

0.0

19.

10

0.0

00.

01

50.0

213

.310

%-1

9%0

0.0

18.

30

0.0

150

.00

0.0

00.

01

6.7

20%

-29%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

030

%-3

9%0

0.0

18.

31

9.1

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

6.7

40%

-49%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

050

%-5

9%0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

60%

-69%

00.

02

16.7

218

.20

0.0

00.

00

0.0

213

.370

%-7

9%1

33.3

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

150

.01

6.7

80%

-89%

00.

01

8.3

19.

10

0.0

00.

00

0.0

16.

790

%-9

9%0

0.0

18.

30

0.0

150

.00

0.0

00.

01

6.7

100%

00.

02

16.7

218

.20

0.0

00.

00

0.0

213

.3I d

on’t

know

.0

0.0

433

.34

36.4

00.

00

0.0

00.

04

26.7

To

tal

310

0.0

1210

0.0

1110

0.0

210

0.0

00.

02

100.

015

100.

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

7

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

65

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q37

Indi

cate

the a

ppro

xim

ate p

erce

ntag

e of s

ectio

ns th

at ar

e tea

m ta

ught

:

Less

than

10%

2943

.352

43.0

3540

.714

42.4

1445

.218

50.0

8343

.710

%-1

9%3

4.5

1310

.710

11.6

13.

01

3.2

411

.116

8.4

20%

-29%

11.

53

2.5

22.

31

3.0

00.

01

2.8

42.

130

%-3

9%0

0.0

10.

81

1.2

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

0.5

40%

-49%

11.

51

0.8

11.

20

0.0

13.

20

0.0

21.

150

%-5

9%2

3.0

54.

15

5.8

00.

01

3.2

12.

87

3.7

60%

-69%

00.

01

0.8

11.

20

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

570

%-7

9%0

0.0

21.

71

1.2

13.

00

0.0

00.

02

1.1

80%

-89%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

090

%-9

9%0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

100%

46.

07

5.8

67.

02

6.1

26.

51

2.8

115.

8I d

on’t

know

.16

23.9

1310

.77

8.1

824

.26

19.4

719

.429

15.3

No

sect

ions

are

team

taug

ht.

1116

.423

19.0

1719

.86

18.2

619

.44

11.1

3417

.9

To

tal

6710

0.0

121

100.

086

100.

033

100.

031

100.

036

100.

019

010

0.0

Q38

Is in

struc

tor t

rain

ing o

ffere

d fo

r sen

ior c

apst

one c

ours

e or e

xper

ienc

e ins

truc

tors

?

Yes

1927

.535

28.5

2629

.98

24.2

928

.111

29.7

5427

.8N

o33

47.8

6956

.147

54.0

2060

.617

53.1

1643

.210

353

.1I d

on’t

know

.17

24.6

1915

.514

16.1

515

.26

18.8

1027

.037

19.1

To

tal

6910

0.0

123

100.

087

100.

033

100.

032

100.

037

100.

019

410

0.0

Appendix D | 67

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

8

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

66


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q39

Is in

struc

tor t

rain

ing r

equi

red

for s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce i

nstr

ucto

rs?

Yes

631

.617

48.6

1557

.73

37.5

222

.23

27.3

2342

.6N

o12

63.2

1645

.711

42.3

562

.54

44.4

872

.728

51.9

I don

’t kn

ow.

15.

32

5.7

00.

00

0.0

333

.30

0.0

35.

6

Tota

l19

100.

035

100.

026

100.

08

100.

09

100.

011

100.

054

100.

0

Q40

How

long

is n

ew in

struc

tor t

rain

ing?

Hal

f a d

ay o

r les

s6

33.3

619

.44

16.7

116

.73

35.5

436

.412

24.5

1 da

y2

11.1

722

.67

29.2

00.

02

25.0

00.

09

18.4

2 da

ys0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

3 da

ys0

0.0

13.

21

4.2

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

2.0

4 da

ys0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

1 w

eek

15.

61

3.2

00.

01

16.7

00.

01

9.1

24.

1O

ther

950

.016

51.6

1250

.04

66.7

337

.56

54.6

2551

.0

Tota

l18

100.

031

100.

024

100.

06

100.

08

100.

011

100.

049

100.

0

Q41

Wha

t cam

pus u

nit d

irect

ly ad

min

ister

s the

seni

or ca

psto

ne co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e?

Aca

dem

ic af

fairs

45.

928

22.2

2325

.86

17.7

26.

31

2.7

3216

.3Ac

adem

ic de

partm

ent(s

) 52

76.5

8164

.357

64.0

2367

.726

81.3

2567

.613

568

.9C

aree

r cen

ter

00.

01

0.8

11.

10

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

5C

olle

ge o

r sch

ool

1014

.711

8.7

66.

73

8.8

412

.58

21.6

2110

.7O

ffice

of al

umni

relat

ions

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0Se

nior

pro

gram

offi

ce0

0.0

10.

80

0.0

12.

90

0.0

00.

01

0.5

Stud

ent a

ffairs

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0O

ther

2

2.9

43.

22

2.3

12.

90

0.0

38.

16

3.1

To

tal

6810

0.0

126

100.

089

100.

034

100.

032

100.

037

100.

019

610

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 6

9

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

67

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q42

Is th

ere a

dea

n, d

irect

or, o

r coo

rdin

ator

of t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

Yes

1522

.132

25.6

2528

.46

17.7

825

.07

18.9

4724

.1N

o48

70.6

9172

.862

70.5

2882

.422

68.8

2670

.314

071

.8I d

on’t

know

.5

7.4

21.

61

1.1

00.

02

6.3

410

.88

4.1

To

tal

6810

0.0

125

100.

088

100.

034

100.

032

100.

037

100.

019

510

0.0

Q43

Doe

s the

dea

n, d

irect

or, o

r coo

rdin

ator

hav

e ano

ther

pos

ition

on

cam

pus?

Yes

1386

.731

96.9

2510

0.0

610

0.0

787

.55

71.4

4493

.6N

o2

13.3

13.

10

0.0

00.

01

12.5

228

.63

6.4

I don

’t kn

ow.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

Tota

l15

100.

032

100.

025

100.

06

100.

08

100.

07

100.

047

100.

0

Q44

The

dea

n, d

irect

or, o

r coo

rdin

ator

’s ot

her c

ampu

s rol

e is a

s a/a

n: (C

heck

all t

hat a

pply.

)

Aca

dem

ic af

fairs

ad

min

istra

tor

17.

711

35.5

936

.02

33.3

00.

01

20.0

1227

.3

Facu

lty m

embe

r12

92.3

2167

.718

72.0

583

.35

71.4

480

.033

75.0

Stud

ent a

ffairs

ad

min

istra

tor

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

O

ther

323

.17

22.6

520

.01

16.7

342

.91

20.0

1022

.7

Q45

Has

your

seni

or ca

psto

ne co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e bee

n fo

rmal

ly as

sess

ed o

r eva

luat

ed si

nce s

prin

g 200

8?

Yes

3653

.770

56.9

4855

.219

57.6

1650

.022

61.1

107

55.7

No

1725

.442

34.2

3034

.510

30.3

1134

.48

22.2

6031

.3I d

on’t

know

.14

20.9

118.

99

10.3

412

.15

15.6

616

.725

13.0

To

tal

6710

0.0

123

100.

087

100.

033

100.

032

100.

036

100.

019

210

0.0

Appendix D | 69

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

68


nior

clas

s siz

ePu

blic

Priv

ate

Less

than

500

501-

1,00

01,

001-

3,00

03,

001+

Tota

lIt

emSu

rvey

que

stio

nFr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%Fr

eq.

%

Q46

Wha

t typ

e of a

sses

smen

t or e

valu

atio

n w

as co

nduc

ted

on yo

ur se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

Acc

redi

tatio

n23

63.9

4260

.029

60.4

1052

.610

62.5

1568

.265

60.7

Ana

lysis

of

insti

tutio

nal d

ata

2363

.944

62.9

3266

.710

52.6

1062

.514

63.6

6762

.6

Focu

s gro

ups w

ith

instr

ucto

rs7

19.4

1115

.76

12.5

421

.14

25.0

418

.218

16.8

Focu

s gro

ups w

ith

stud

ents

822

.217

24.3

918

.87

36.8

531

.34

18.2

2523

.4

Indi

vidu

al in

terv

iew

s w

ith in

struc

tors

25.

611

15.7

918

.80

0.0

425

.00

0.0

1312

.1

Indi

vidu

al in

terv

iew

s w

ith st

uden

ts5

13.9

1115

.78

16.7

315

.83

18.8

29.

116

15.0

Stud

ent c

ours

e ev

alua

tion

2672

.253

75.7

4083

.314

73.7

1062

.514

63.6

8074

.8

Su

rvey

instr

umen

t15

41.7

3144

.318

37.5

947

.48

50.0

1045

.546

43.0

Q47

Wha

t typ

e of s

urve

y ins

trum

ent d

id yo

ur in

stitu

tion

use t

o as

sess

or e

valu

ate t

he se

nior

caps

tone

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

A lo

cally

dev

elop

ed

surv

ey11

73.3

2477

.415

83.3

777

.85

62.5

770

.035

76.1

A n

atio

nal s

urve

y12

80.0

2167

.79

50.0

910

0.0

675

.08

80.0

3371

.7

I don

’t kn

ow.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

Q48

If yo

u us

ed a

natio

nal s

urve

y, pl

ease

iden

tify t

he su

rvey

(s):

(Che

ck al

l tha

t app

ly.)

Coo

pera

tive

Insti

tutio

nal R

esea

rch

Prog

ram

(CIR

P)

Col

lege

Sen

ior S

urve

y

18.

34

19.0

111

.11

11.1

233

.31

12.5

515

.2

Nat

iona

l Sur

vey o

f St

uden

t Eng

agem

ent

(NSS

E)

1210

0.0

1990

.57

77.8

910

0.0

610

0.0

810

0.0

3193

.9

Wab

ash

Nat

iona

l St

udy o

f Lib

eral

Art

s Ed

ucat

ion

00.

01

4.8

00.

01

11.1

00.

00

0.0

13.

0

O

ther

433

.34

19.0

333

.30

0.0

116

.71

12.5

515

.2

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

1

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

69

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q50

Sele

ct th

ree o

utco

me(

s) th

at w

ere m

easu

red

usin

g the

asse

ssmen

t(s)

or e

valu

atio

n(s)

list

ed ab

ove:

Con

nect

ion

to th

e di

scip

line(

s)9

25.0

3245

.718

37.5

1157

.96

37.5

627

.341

38.3

Con

nect

ions

with

pe

ers

00.

03

4.3

24.

20

0.0

00.

01

4.5

32.

8

Crit

ical

thin

king

, an

alyt

ical

skill

s, or

pr

oblem

-solv

ing s

kills

2569

.451

72.9

3675

.013

68.4

1062

.515

68.2

7671

.0

Empl

oym

ent a

fter

colle

ge5

13.9

45.

75

10.4

15.

32

12.5

14.

59

8.4

Entr

ance

into

gr

adua

te sc

hool

12.

84

5.7

36.

31

5.3

00.

01

4.5

54.

7

Gra

de p

oint

aver

age

513

.91

1.4

24.

20

0.0

16.

32

9.1

65.

6O

ral c

omm

unic

atio

n10

27.8

2028

.612

25.0

421

.16

37.5

836

.430

28.0

Out

-of-c

lass

stud

ent-

instr

ucto

r int

erac

tion

12.

82

2.9

24.

20

0.0

00.

01

4.5

32.

8

Pers

isten

ce to

gr

adua

tion

00.

01

1.4

12.

10

0.0

00.

00

0.0

10.

9

Satis

fact

ion

with

ca

mpu

s ser

vice

s0

0.0

11.

41

2.1

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

0.9

Satis

fact

ion

with

in

stitu

tion

38.

37

10.0

510

.41

5.3

212

.52

9.1

109.

3

Satis

fact

ion

with

in

struc

tor

411

.111

15.7

816

.73

15.8

16.

32

9.1

1514

.0

Team

wor

k or

gro

up

wor

k5

13.9

57.

13

6.3

210

.53

18.8

29.

110

9.3

Writ

ten

com

mun

icatio

n15

41.7

3347

.122

45.8

947

.47

43.8

836

.448

44.9

O

ther

925

.012

17.1

918

.82

10.5

318

.87

31.8

2119

.6

Appendix D | 71

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

2

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

70


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q52

If yo

u di

d no

t adm

inist

er a

seni

or ca

psto

ne ex

perie

nce o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s dur

ing t

he p

rior a

cade

mic

year

, ple

ase i

ndic

ate t

he re

ason

:

Lack

of f

undi

ng0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Lack

of f

acul

ty/s

taff/

ad

min

istra

tion

buy-

in0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Lim

ited

time

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0Se

nior

caps

tone

ex

perie

nces

are n

ot an

in

stitu

tiona

l prio

rity

133

.31

33.3

00.

01

100.

01

33.3

00.

02

33.3

Oth

er2

66.7

266

.72

100.

00

0.0

266

.70

0.0

466

.7

Tota

l3

100.

03

100.

02

100.

01

100.

03

100.

00

0.0

610

0.0

Q53

If yo

u di

d no

t adm

inist

er a

seni

or ca

psto

ne ex

perie

nce o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s dur

ing t

he p

rior a

cade

mic

year

, doe

s you

r ins

titut

ion

plan

to in

itiat

e one

?

Yes,

in th

e nex

t yea

r1

25.0

00.

01

50.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

14.3

Yes,

in th

e nex

t 2-4

year

s0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Yes,

in t

he n

ext

5 or

m

ore y

ears

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

No

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0I d

on’t

know

.3

75.0

310

0.0

150

.01

100.

04

100.

00

0.0

685

.7

Tota

l4

100.

03

100.

02

100.

01

100.

04

100.

00

0.0

710

0.0

Q54

If yo

ur in

stitu

tion

is pl

anni

ng to

initi

ate a

seni

or ca

psto

ne ex

perie

nce,

plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

caps

tone

expe

rienc

e you

r ins

titut

ion

is co

nsid

erin

g: (C

heck

all t

hat a

pply.

)

Disc

iplin

e-ba

sed

caps

tone

cour

se1

25.0

00.

01

50.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

14.3

Inte

rdisc

iplin

ary

caps

tone

cour

se1

25.0

00.

01

50.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

14.3

Com

preh

ensiv

e exa

m0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

3

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

71

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q54

If yo

ur in

stitu

tion

is pl

anni

ng to

initi

ate a

seni

or ca

psto

ne ex

perie

nce,

plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

caps

tone

expe

rienc

e you

r ins

titut

ion

is co

nsid

erin

g: (C

heck

all t

hat a

pply.

)

Exhi

bitio

n of

pe

rfor

min

g, m

usic

al,

or vi

sual

arts

125

.00

0.0

150

.00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

114

.3

Inte

rnsh

ip1

25.0

00.

01

50.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

14.3

Seni

or th

esis

or

unde

rgra

duat

e re

sear

ch p

aper

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0

Unk

now

n2

50.0

266

.71

50.0

00.

03

75.0

00.

04

57.1

O

ther

125

.01

33.3

210

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

02

28.6

Two-Y

ear I

nstit

utio

ns (Q

57-Q

59)

Q57

Did

your

insti

tutio

n—at

any d

epar

tmen

t or d

ivisi

on-le

vel—

offe

r one

or m

ore c

apst

one e

xper

ienc

e(s)

dur

ing t

he 2

010-

2011

acad

emic

year

?

Yes

2562

.52

100.

0-

--

--

--

-27

62.8

No

1230

.00

0.0

--

--

--

--

1227

.9I d

on’t

know

.3

7.5

00.

0-

--

--

--

-4

9.3

To

tal

4010

0.0

210

0.0

--

--

--

--

4310

0.0

Q58

Sele

ct th

e cap

ston

e exp

erie

nce(

s) th

at b

est d

escr

ibes

the c

ours

e/pr

ojec

t tha

t exi

sts o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s: (C

heck

all t

hat a

pply.

)

Disc

iplin

e-ba

sed

caps

tone

cour

se15

60.0

150

.0-

--

--

--

-16

59.3

Inte

rdisc

iplin

ary

caps

tone

cour

se4

16.0

150

.0-

--

--

--

-5

18.5

Cer

tific

atio

n w

ithin

ca

reer

520

.00

0.0

--

--

--

--

518

.5

Com

preh

ensiv

e exa

m5

20.0

150

.0-

--

--

--

-6

22.2

Exhi

bitio

n of

pe

rfor

min

g, m

usic

al,

or vi

sual

arts

28.

00

0.0

--

--

--

--

27.

4

Fina

l pre

sent

atio

n1

4.0

150

.0-

--

--

--

-2

7.4

Appendix D | 73

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

4

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

72


Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q58

Sele

ct th

e cap

ston

e exp

erie

nce(

s) th

at b

est d

escr

ibes

the c

ours

e/pr

ojec

t tha

t exi

sts o

n yo

ur ca

mpu

s: (C

ont.)

Inte

rnsh

ip10

40.0

150

.0-

--

--

--

-11

40.7

Port

folio

832

.01

50.0

--

--

--

--

933

.3Pr

epar

atio

n fo

r tr

ansfe

r to

four

-yea

r in

stitu

tion

312

.00

0.0

--

--

--

--

311

.1

Seni

or th

esis

or

unde

rgra

duat

e re

sear

ch p

aper

00.

00

0.0

--

--

--

--

00.

0

Serv

ice-

lear

ning

or

com

mun

ity se

rvic

e pr

ojec

t

28.

02

100.

0-

--

--

--

-4

14.8

O

ther

28.

00

0.0

--

--

--

--

27.

4

Q59

Wha

t is t

he ap

prox

imat

e per

cent

age o

f stu

dent

s who

enro

lled/

part

icip

ated

in a

caps

tone

expe

rienc

e(s)

on

your

cam

pus?

Less

than

10%

416

.70

0.0

--

--

--

--

415

.410

%-1

9%4

16.7

00.

0-

--

--

--

-4

15.4

20%

-29%

312

.50

0.0

--

--

--

--

311

.530

%-3

9%1

4.2

150

.0-

--

--

--

-2

7.7

40%

-49%

14.

20

0.0

--

--

--

--

13.

950

%-5

9%2

8.3

00.

0-

--

--

--

-2

7.7

60%

-69%

14.

20

0.0

--

--

--

--

13.

970

%-7

9%2

8.3

00.

0-

--

--

--

-2

7.7

80%

-89%

14.

20

0.0

--

--

--

--

13.

990

%-9

9%1

4.2

150

.0-

--

--

--

-2

7.7

100%

00.

00

0.0

--

--

--

--

00.

0I d

on’t

know

.4

16.7

00.

0-

--

--

--

-4

15.4

To

tal

2410

0.0

210

0.0

--

--

--

--

2610

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

5

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

74

Seni

or cl

ass s

ize

Publ

icPr

ivat

eLe

ss th

an 5

0050

1-1,

000

1,00

1-3,

000

3,00

1+To

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q62

Rel

ease

of d

ata:

You m

ay sh

are m

y sur

vey

resp

onse

s.56

48.9

7048

.048

47.1

1947

.517

43.6

1948

.712

747

.9

Plea

se d

o no

t sha

re m

y su

rvey

resp

onse

s.61

52.1

7652

.154

52.9

2152

.522

56.4

2051

.313

852

.1

T

otal

117

100.

014

610

0.0

102

100.

040

100.

039

100.

039

100.

026

510

0.0

Appendix D | 75

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

74


Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

7

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q7

Wha

t is t

he a

ppro

xim

ate

perc

enta

ge o

f sen

iors

who

enr

olle

d/pa

rtic

ipat

ed in

a se

nior

cap

ston

e ex

peri

ence

(s) o

n yo

ur c

ampu

s?

Less

than

10%

3

2.1

00.

02

2.9

52.

110

% -

19%

74.

92

6.1

45.

913

5.4

20%

- 29

%9

6.3

00.

08

11.8

177.

030

% -

39%

74.

91

3.0

11.

59

3.7

40%

- 49

%4

2.8

13.

02

2.9

72.

950

% -

59%

96.

31

3.0

34.

413

5.4

60%

- 69

%11

7.8

13.

02

2.9

145.

870

% -

79%

107.

01

3.0

22.

913

5.4

80%

- 89

%13

9.2

13.

06

8.8

208.

290

% -

99%

128.

55

15.2

45.

921

8.6

100%

4330

.320

60.6

2333

.886

35.4

I don

’t kn

ow.

149.

90

0.0

1116

.225

10.3

Tota

l14

210

0.0

3310

0.0

6810

0.0

243

100.

0

Q8

App

roxi

mat

ely

how

man

y ye

ars h

as a

seni

or c

apst

one

expe

rien

ce(s

) bee

n of

fere

d on

you

r cam

pus?

1 ye

ar o

r les

s2

1.4

00.

00

0.0

20.

82

year

s0

0.0

13.

00

0.0

10.

43

- 10

year

s56

37.8

1133

.317

24.6

8433

.6M

ore

than

10

year

s90

60.8

2163

.652

75.4

163

65.2

Tota

l14

810

0.0

3310

0.0

6910

0.0

250

100.

0

All R

espo

nses

by

Caps

tone

Typ

e

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q9

Sele

ct th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e ex

peri

ence

(s) t

hat b

est d

escr

ibes

the

cour

se/p

roje

ct th

at e

xist

on

your

cam

pus:

(Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d ca

psto

ne c

ours

e15

098

.721

63.6

5680

.022

784

.7In

terd

isci

plin

ary

caps

tone

cou

rse

3825

.033

100.

018

25.7

8933

.2C

ompr

ehen

sive

exa

m32

21.1

39.

119

27.1

5420

.1Ex

hibi

tion

of p

erfo

rmin

g, m

usic

al, o

r vis

ual a

rts

9461

.816

48.5

4665

.715

658

.2In

tern

ship

7750

.710

30.3

3854

.312

546

.6Se

nior

thes

is o

r und

ergr

adua

te re

sear

ch p

aper

102

67.1

1545

.556

80.0

173

64.6

Oth

er (

plea

se sp

ecif

y)9

5.9

13.

09

12.9

197.

1

Q11

Wha

t dis

cipl

ine

com

pose

s the

dis

cipl

ine-

base

d ca

psto

ne c

ours

e w

ith th

e hi

ghes

t tot

al se

nior

enr

ollm

ent o

n yo

ur c

ampu

s?

App

lied

scie

nce

2819

.1-

--

-28

19.1

Busi

ness

4832

.7-

--

-48

32.7

Form

al sc

ienc

es0

0.0

--

--

00.

0H

uman

ities

15

10.2

--

--

1510

.2La

w0

0.0

--

--

00.

0N

atur

al sc

ienc

es12

8.2

--

--

128.

2Pe

rfor

min

g ar

ts2

1.4

--

--

21.

4Pr

emed

icin

e1

0.7

--

--

10.

7So

cial

scie

nces

2416

.3-

--

-24

16.3

Oth

er17

11.6

--

--

1711

.6To

tal

147

100.

0-

--

-14

710

0.0

Appendix D | 77

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

8

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

76


Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 7

9

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

77

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q12

Wha

t dis

cipl

ines

com

pose

the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce

(int

erds

cipl

inar

y ca

psto

ne c

ours

e w

ith th

e hi

ghes

t tot

al se

nior

enr

ollm

ent o

n yo

ur c

ampu

s? (C

heck

all

that

app

ly.)

App

lied

scie

nce

--

1030

.3-

-10

3.7

Busi

ness

--

1339

.4-

-13

4.9

Form

al sc

ienc

es-

-2

6.1

--

20.

7H

uman

ities

-

-17

51.5

--

176.

3La

w-

-0

0.0

--

00.

0N

atur

al sc

ienc

es-

-10

30.3

--

103.

7Pe

rfor

min

g ar

ts-

-7

21.2

--

72.

6Pr

emed

icin

e-

-1

3.0

--

10.

4So

cial

scie

nces

--

1339

.4-

-13

4.9

Oth

er-

-9

27.3

--

93.

4

Q13

Doe

s the

seni

or c

apst

one

proj

ect h

ave

a co

urse

com

pone

nt (e

.g.,

are

stud

ents

requ

ired

to a

tten

d an

inst

ruct

or-le

d cl

ass a

s par

t of t

he p

roje

ct)?

Yes

--

--

4262

.742

62.7

No

--

--

2537

.325

37.3

Tota

l-

--

-67

100.

067

100.

0

Appendix D | 79

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

78

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q14

Sele

ct th

e th

ree

mos

t im

port

ant c

ours

e ob

ject

ives

for t

he se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e:

Abi

lity

to c

ondu

ct sc

hola

rly

rese

arch

5536

.24

12.1

1521

.474

27.6

Abi

lity

to p

erfo

rm in

depe

nden

tly34

22.4

26.

114

20.0

5018

.7A

ppre

ciat

ion

of d

isci

plin

e(s)

3019

.710

30.3

710

.047

17.5

Car

eer p

repa

ratio

n50

32.9

412

.113

18.6

6725

.0C

ertif

icat

ion

prep

arat

ion

53.

31

3.0

22.

98

3.0

Prep

arat

ion

into

gra

duat

e sc

hool

106.

60

0.0

11.

411

4.1

Incr

ease

cri

tical

thin

king

, ana

lytic

al

skill

s, or

pro

blem

-sol

ving

skill

s91

59.9

2369

.719

27.1

133

49.6

Incr

ease

con

nect

ions

with

pee

rs0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0In

crea

se sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith a

cade

mic

dis

cipl

ine

10.

71

3.0

11.

43

1.1

Incr

ease

satis

fact

ion

with

inst

itut

ion

10.

70

0.0

00.

01

0.4

Incr

ease

satis

fact

ion

with

inst

ruct

or0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0D

evel

op o

ut-o

f-cl

ass s

tude

nt-in

stru

ctor

inte

ract

ion(

s)3

2.0

00.

01

1.4

41.

5Li

fe-s

kills

42.

60

0.0

11.

45

1.9

Pers

iste

nce

to g

radu

atio

n0

0.0

00.

01

1.4

10.

4Pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent

4831

.67

21.2

811

.463

23.5


Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

1

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

79

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q14

Sele

ct th

e th

ree

mos

t im

port

ant c

ours

e ob

ject

ives

for t

he se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e: (C

ont.)

Prof

icie

ncy

in o

ral c

omm

unic

atio

n21

13.8

927

.310

14.3

4014

.9Pr

ofic

ienc

y in

wri

tten

com

mun

icat

ion

3825

.012

36.4

1115

.761

22.8

Prom

ote

use

of c

ampu

s ser

vice

s0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0O

ther

149.

211

33.3

34.

328

10.4

Q15

Sele

ct th

e th

ree

mos

t im

port

ant t

opic

s tha

t com

pose

the

cont

ent o

f the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

Car

eer d

evel

opm

ent

3221

.11

3.0

1115

.744

16.4

Cer

tific

atio

n re

adin

ess

53.

31

3.0

34.

39

3.4

Con

duct

ing

scho

larl

y re

sear

ch51

33.6

515

.215

21.4

7126

.5C

ritic

al th

inki

ng, a

naly

tical

skill

s, or

pro

blem

-sol

ving

skill

s99

65.1

2060

.620

28.6

139

51.9

Dis

cipl

ine-

spec

ific

topi

c84

55.3

824

.224

34.3

116

43.3

Div

ersi

ty is

sues

00.

03

9.1

00.

03

1.1

Enga

ged

alum

ni o

r alu

mni

opp

ortu

nitie

s0

0.0

13.

00

0.0

10.

4Et

hica

l iss

ues

138.

613

39.4

45.

730

11.2

Fina

ncia

l lit

erac

y0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0G

radu

ate

scho

ol a

pplic

atio

n pr

oces

s1

0.7

00.

01

1.4

20.

7Le

ader

ship

skill

s20

13.2

39.

10

0.0

238.

6O

ral c

omm

unic

atio

n sk

ills

127.

97

21.2

68.

625

9.3

Rel

atio

nshi

p sk

ills

10.

72

6.1

00.

03

1.1

Team

wor

k or

gro

up w

ork

3221

.18

24.2

57.

145

16.8

Tech

nolo

gy sk

ills

63.

90

0.0

34.

39

3.4

Wri

ting

skill

s35

23.0

1030

.311

15.7

5620

.9O

ther

95.

94

12.1

45.

717

6.3

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

2

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

80

Appendix D | 81

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q16

Plea

se se

lect

the

final

com

pone

nt o

r end

-pro

duct

that

is re

quir

ed to

com

plet

e th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e: (C

heck

all

that

app

ly.)

Cer

tific

atio

n w

ithin

car

eer

117.

21

3.0

34.

315

5.6

Com

preh

ensi

ve e

xam

2516

.44

12.1

710

.036

13.4

Exhi

bit o

f art

, mus

ic p

erfo

rman

ce, o

r rec

ital

5838

.25

15.2

1217

.175

28.0

Fina

l exa

min

atio

n25

16.4

412

.14

5.7

3312

.3Fi

nal p

rese

ntat

ion

9461

.814

42.4

1927

.112

747

.4Fi

nal p

roje

ct11

072

.419

57.6

1825

.714

754

.9G

radu

ate

scho

ol a

pplic

atio

n2

1.3

00.

01

1.4

31.

1Po

rtfo

lio -

com

preh

ensi

ve c

urri

cula

r44

28.9

515

.213

18.6

6223

.1R

ésum

é15

9.9

13.

02

2.9

186.

7U

nder

grad

uate

rese

arch

pap

er o

r the

sis

7348

.012

36.4

1927

.110

438

.8N

o fin

al c

ompo

nent

or e

nd-p

rodu

ct0

0.0

39.

10

0.0

31.

1O

ther

117.

23

9.1

45.

718

6.7

Q17

Plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

prac

tices

are

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

Com

mun

icat

ion

of h

igh

expe

ctat

ions

106

69.7

1957

.628

40.0

153

57.1

Coo

pera

tive

lear

ning

7348

.015

45.5

1521

.410

338

.4C

ours

e is

aca

dem

ical

ly c

halle

ngin

g10

367

.820

60.6

2535

.714

855

.2D

iver

sity

exp

erie

nces

2113

.810

30.3

710

.038

14.2

Emph

asis

on

time

on ta

sk a

nd su

bmit

ting

wor

k50

32.9

618

.220

28.6

7628

.4


Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q17

Plea

se in

dica

te w

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

prac

tices

are

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce:

(Con

t.)

Inst

ruct

or e

ncou

rage

men

t of a

ctiv

e le

arni

ng80

52.6

1854

.523

32.9

121

45.1

Inte

grat

ive

lear

ning

(bet

wee

n co

urse

s or

bet

wee

n co

urse

wor

k an

d lif

e)11

173

.028

84.8

2231

.416

160

.1

Qua

lity

of c

lass

room

inte

ract

ions

with

inst

ruct

or47

30.9

1236

.412

17.1

7126

.5Q

ualit

y of

non

clas

sroo

m in

tera

ctio

ns w

ith in

stru

ctor

2919

.16

18.2

1115

.746

17.2

Posi

tive

peer

inte

ract

ions

5737

.519

57.6

1115

.787

32.5

Prom

pt fe

edba

ck fr

om in

stru

ctor

4730

.910

30.3

1318

.670

26.1

Use

of h

ighe

r ord

er e

xam

s and

ass

ignm

ents

5737

.511

33.3

1217

.180

29.9

Oth

er4

2.6

26.

13

4.3

93.

4

Q18

Whi

ch st

uden

ts, b

y ca

tego

ry, a

re re

quir

ed to

take

the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

Cer

tain

maj

ors

6542

.84

12.1

1927

.188

32.8

Firs

t-ge

nera

tion

stud

ents

10.

70

0.0

00.

01

0.4

Hon

ors s

tude

nts

2919

.12

6.1

710

.038

14.2

Inte

rnat

iona

l stu

dent

s1

0.7

00.

00

0.0

10.

4Le

arni

ng c

omm

unit

y pa

rtic

ipan

ts3

2.0

00.

00

0.0

31.

1N

ontr

aditi

onal

-age

d st

uden

ts1

0.7

00.

00

0.0

10.

4St

uden

t ath

lete

s2

1.3

00.

00

0.0

20.

7

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

3

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

81

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q18

Whi

ch st

uden

ts, b

y ca

tego

ry, a

re re

quir

ed to

take

the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Con

t.)

Stud

ents

with

in sp

ecifi

c di

scip

lines

2516

.42

6.1

1115

.738

14.2

Tran

sfer

stud

ents

10.

70

0.0

00.

01

0.4

Non

e ar

e re

quir

ed to

take

it.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

All

seni

ors a

re re

quir

ed to

take

it.

6744

.124

72.7

1622

.910

739

.9O

ther

53.

31

3.0

34.

39

3.4

Q19

Wha

t is t

he a

ppro

xim

ate

clas

s siz

e of

eac

h se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e se

ctio

n?

10 st

uden

ts o

r few

er23

17.2

13.

58

21.6

3216

.011

-15

3727

.63

10.3

1540

.555

27.5

16-1

931

23.1

827

.66

16.2

4522

.520

-24

2417

.98

27.6

410

.836

18.0

25-3

011

8.2

620

.71

2.7

189.

0M

ore

than

30

86.

03

10.3

38.

114

7.0

Tota

l13

410

0.0

2910

0.0

3710

0.0

200

100.

0

Q20

Plea

se in

dica

te th

e app

roxi

mat

e num

ber o

f sec

tions

of t

his s

enio

r cap

ston

e cou

rse o

r exp

erie

nce t

hat w

ere o

ffer

ed d

urin

g the

201

0-20

11 ac

adem

ic ye

ar:

1-10

5644

.810

35.7

1647

.182

43.9

11-2

017

13.6

517

.912

35.3

3418

.221

-30

1512

.04

14.3

25.

921

11.2

31-4

013

10.4

27.

10

0.0

158.

041

-50

86.

43

10.7

38.

814

7.5

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

4

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

82

Appendix D | 83


Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

5

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

83

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q20

Plea

se in

dica

te th

e ap

prox

imat

e nu

mbe

r of s

ectio

ns o

f thi

s sen

ior c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce

that

wer

e of

fere

d du

ring

the

2010

-201

1 ac

adem

ic

year

: (C

ont.)

51-6

01

0.8

00.

00

0.0

10.

561

-70

10.

80

0.0

00.

01

0.5

71-8

01

0.8

00.

00

0.0

10.

581

-90

21.

61

3.6

00.

03

1.6

91-1

007

5.6

00.

00

0.0

73.

7M

ore

than

100

43.

23

10.7

12.

98

4.3

Tota

l12

510

0.0

2810

0.0

3410

0.0

187

100.

0

Q21

Wha

t is t

he ty

pica

l len

gth

of a

sect

ion

of th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e?

Hal

f a se

mes

ter

21.

50

0.0

00.

02

1.0

One

qua

rter

43.

01

3.6

12.

66

3.0

One

sem

este

r11

585

.226

92.9

2771

.116

883

.6O

ne y

ear

75.

21

3.6

615

.814

7.0

Oth

er7

5.2

00.

04

10.5

115.

5To

tal

135

100.

028

100.

038

100.

020

110

0.0

Q22

How

is th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e gr

aded

?

No

grad

e0

0.0

00.

01

2.6

10.

5Pa

ss/f

ail

32.

20

0.0

513

.28

4.0

Lett

er g

rade

126

93.3

2896

.627

71.1

181

89.6

Oth

er6

4.4

13.

55

13.2

125.

9To

tal

135

100.

029

100.

038

100.

020

210

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

6

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

84

Appendix D | 85

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q23

Doe

s the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce

carr

y ac

adem

ic c

redi

t?

Yes

135

99.3

2910

0.0

3694

.720

098

.5N

o0

0.0

00.

02

5.3

21.

0I d

on’t

know

.1

0.7

00.

00

0.0

10.

5To

tal

136

100.

029

100.

038

100.

020

310

0.0

Q24

How

man

y cr

edit

s doe

s the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce

carr

y?

18

6.0

00.

03

8.8

115.

62

21.

51

3.5

00.

03

1.5

394

70.7

2275

.922

64.7

138

70.4

418

13.5

413

.85

14.7

2713

.85

10.

80

0.0

00.

01

0.5

Mor

e th

an 5

107.

52

6.9

411

.816

8.2

Tota

l13

310

0.0

2910

0.0

3410

0.0

196

100.

0

Q25

How

is th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e cr

edit

app

lied?

(Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

As a

n el

ectiv

e7

4.6

13.

01

1.4

93.

4To

war

d ge

nera

l edu

catio

n re

quir

emen

ts16

10.5

2266

.74

5.7

4215

.7To

war

d m

ajor

requ

irem

ents

127

83.6

927

.333

47.1

169

63.1

Oth

er3

2.0

26.

11

1.4

62.

2


Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

7

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

85

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q26

How

man

y to

tal c

lass

room

con

tact

hou

rs a

re th

ere

per w

eek

in th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e?

16

4.8

00.

06

16.7

126.

3

28

6.4

13.

52

5.6

115.

83

9978

.625

86.2

2158

.314

575

.94

75.

61

3.5

38.

311

5.8

51

0.8

13.

50

0.0

21.

1M

ore

than

55

4.0

13.

54

11.1

105.

2To

tal

126

100.

029

100.

036

100.

019

110

0.0

Q27

Are

any

sect

ions

of t

he se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e lin

ked

to o

ne o

r mor

e ot

her c

ours

es?

Yes

4231

.67

24.1

2155

.370

35.0

No

6347

.421

72.4

1026

.394

47.0

I don

’t kn

ow.

2821

.11

3.5

718

.436

18.0

Tota

l13

310

0.0

2910

0.0

3810

0.0

200

100.

0

Q28

Do

any

sect

ions

inco

rpor

ate

onlin

e co

mpo

nent

s?

Yes

5037

.917

60.7

1231

.679

39.9

No

3929

.68

28.6

1334

.260

30.3

I don

’t kn

ow.

4332

.63

10.7

1334

.259

29.8

Tota

l13

210

0.0

2810

0.0

3810

0.0

198

100.

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

8

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

86

Appendix D | 87

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q30

Are

ther

e an

y on

line-

only

sect

ions

?

Yes

2014

.86

20.7

616

.232

15.9

No

9469

.621

72.4

2567

.614

069

.7I d

on’t

know

.21

15.6

26.

96

16.2

2914

.4To

tal

135

100.

029

100.

037

100.

020

110

0.0

Q31

Plea

se in

dica

te th

e ap

prox

imat

e pe

rcen

tage

of o

nlin

e-on

ly se

ctio

ns:

Less

than

10%

1365

.03

50.0

350

.019

59.4

10%

-19%

315

.00

0.0

00.

03

9.4

20%

-29%

00.

01

16.7

00.

01

3.1

30%

-39%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

40%

-49%

210

.01

16.7

116

.74

12.5

50%

-59%

15.

01

16.7

00.

02

6.3

60%

-69%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

70%

-79%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

80%

-89%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

90%

-99%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

100%

15.

00

0.0

233

.33

9.4

Tota

l20

100.

06

100.

06

100.

032

100.

0


Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 8

9

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

87

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q33

Who

is th

e pr

imar

y in

stru

ctor

of t

he se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e? (C

heck

all

that

app

ly.)

Aca

dem

ic a

ffai

rs p

rofe

ssio

nals

42.

62

6.1

57.

111

4.1

Adj

unct

facu

lty

159.

96

18.2

710

.028

10.4

Full-

time,

non

-ten

ure-

trac

k fa

cult

y27

17.8

824

.214

20.0

4918

.3G

radu

ate

stud

ents

10.

71

3.0

00.

02

0.7

Stud

ent a

ffai

rs p

rofe

ssio

nals

10.

71

3.0

00.

02

0.7

Tenu

re-t

rack

facu

lty

109

71.7

2472

.722

31.4

155

57.8

Und

ergr

adua

te st

uden

ts0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0O

ther

95.

93

9.1

811

.420

7.5

Q34

If u

nder

grad

uate

stud

ents

ass

ist i

n th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e, w

hat i

s the

ir ro

le? (

Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

The

y te

ach

inde

pend

ently

.0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0T

hey

teac

h as

a p

art o

f a te

am.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

The

y as

sist

the

inst

ruct

or, b

ut d

o no

t tea

ch.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

The

role

is d

eter

min

ed b

y th

e in

stru

ctor

.0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

0O

ther

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Q35

Are

any

seni

ors i

nten

tiona

lly p

lace

d in

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce

sect

ions

taug

ht b

y th

eir a

cade

mic

adv

isor

s?

Yes

64.

60

0.0

924

.315

7.7

No

9875

.426

92.9

2054

.114

473

.9I d

on’t

know

.26

20.0

27.

18

21.6

3618

.5To

tal

130

100.

028

100.

037

100.

019

510

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 9

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

88

Appendix D | 89

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q36

Wha

t is t

he a

ppro

xim

ate

perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s pla

ced

in se

ctio

ns w

ith th

eir a

cade

mic

adv

isor

s?

Less

than

10%

116

.70

0.0

111

.12

13.3

10%

-19%

116

.70

0.0

00.

01

6.7

20%

-29%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

30%

-39%

00.

00

0.0

111

.11

6.7

40%

-49%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

50%

-59%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

60%

-69%

00.

00

0.0

222

.22

13.3

70%

-79%

00.

00

0.0

111

.11

6.7

80%

-89%

00.

00

0.0

111

.11

6.7

90%

-99%

116

.70

0.0

00.

01

6.7

100%

116

.70

0.0

111

.12

13.3

I don

’t kn

ow.

233

.30

0.0

222

.24

26.7

Tota

l6

100.

00

0.0

910

0.0

1510

0.0

Q37

Indi

cate

the

appr

oxim

ate

perc

enta

ge o

f sec

tions

that

are

team

taug

ht:

Less

than

10%

5946

.812

42.9

1233

.383

43.7

10%

-19%

86.

44

14.3

411

.116

8.4

20%

-29%

32.

40

0.0

12.

84

2.1

30%

-39%

10.

80

0.0

00.

01

0.5

40%

-49%

21.

60

0.0

00.

02

1.1

50%

-59%

32.

41

3.6

38.

37

3.7

60%

-69%

10.

80

0.0

00.

01

0.5

70%

-79%

10.

81

3.6

00.

02

1.1


Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q37

Indi

cate

the

appr

oxim

ate

perc

enta

ge o

f sec

tions

that

are

team

-tau

ght:

(Con

t.)

80%

-89%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

90%

-99%

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

100%

64.

82

7.1

38.

311

5.8

I don

’t kn

ow.

2217

.51

3.6

616

.729

15.3

No

sect

ions

are

team

-tau

ght.

2015

.97

25.0

719

.434

17.9

Tota

l12

610

0.0

2810

0.0

3610

0.0

190

100.

0

Q38

Is in

stru

ctor

trai

ning

off

ered

for s

enio

r cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e in

stru

ctor

s?

Yes

2821

.517

63.0

924

.354

27.8

No

7154

.610

37.0

2259

.510

353

.1I d

on’t

know

.31

23.9

00.

06

16.2

3719

.1To

tal

130

100.

027

100.

037

100.

019

410

0.0

Q39

Is in

stru

ctor

trai

ning

requ

ired

for s

enio

r cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e in

stru

ctor

s?

Yes

1035

.77

41.2

666

.723

42.6

No

1760

.78

47.1

333

.328

51.9

I don

’t kn

ow.

13.

62

11.8

00.

03

5.6

Tota

l28

100.

017

100.

09

100.

054

100.

0Ta

ble c

ontin

ues o

n p.

91

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

89

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q40

How

long

is n

ew in

stru

ctor

trai

ning

?

Hal

f a d

ay o

r les

s8

29.6

320

.01

14.3

1224

.51

day

414

.82

13.3

342

.99

18.4

2 da

ys0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

03

days

13.

70

0.0

00.

01

2.0

4 da

ys0

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

01

wee

k0

0.0

213

.30

0.0

24.

1O

ther

1451

.98

53.3

342

.925

51.0

Tota

l27

100.

015

100.

07

100.

049

100.

0

Q41

Wha

t cam

pus u

nit d

irec

tly a

dmin

iste

rs th

e se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e?

Aca

dem

ic a

ffai

rs19

14.5

932

.14

10.8

3216

.3A

cade

mic

dep

artm

ent(

s)

9673

.311

39.3

2875

.713

568

.9C

aree

r cen

ter

00.

01

3.6

00.

01

0.5

Col

lege

or s

choo

l15

11.5

310

.73

8.1

2110

.7O

ffic

e of

alu

mni

rela

tions

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Seni

or p

rogr

am o

ffic

e0

0.0

13.

60

0.0

10.

5St

uden

t aff

airs

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Oth

er

10.

83

10.7

25.

46

3.1

Tota

l13

110

0.0

2810

0.0

3710

0.0

196

100.

0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 9

2

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

90

Appendix D | 91


Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q42

Is th

ere

a de

an, d

irec

tor,

or c

oord

inat

or o

f the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

Yes

1914

.617

60.7

1129

.747

24.1

No

105

80.8

1139

.324

64.9

140

71.8

I don

’t kn

ow.

64.

60

0.0

25.

48

4.1

Tota

l13

010

0.0

2810

0.0

3710

0.0

195

100.

0

Q43

Doe

s the

dea

n, d

irec

tor,

or c

oord

inat

or h

ave

anot

her p

ositi

on o

n ca

mpu

s?

Yes

1894

.716

94.1

1090

.944

93.6

No

15.

31

5.9

19.

13

6.4

I don

’t kn

ow.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Tota

l19

100.

017

100.

011

100.

047

100.

0

Q44

The

dea

n, d

irec

tor,

or c

oord

inat

or’s

othe

r cam

pus r

ole

is a

s a/a

n: (C

heck

all

that

app

ly.)

Aca

dem

ic a

ffai

rs a

dmin

istr

ator

422

.25

31.3

330

.012

27.3

Facu

lty

mem

ber

1583

.312

75.0

660

.033

75.0

Stud

ent a

ffai

rs a

dmin

istr

ator

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Oth

er5

27.8

212

.53

30.0

1022

.7

Q45

Has

you

r sen

ior c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce

been

form

ally

ass

esse

d or

eva

luat

ed si

nce

spri

ng 2

008?

Yes

7054

.318

64.3

1954

.310

755

.7N

o41

31.8

932

.110

28.6

6031

.3I d

on’t

know

.18

14.0

13.

66

17.1

2513

.0To

tal

129

100.

028

100.

035

100.

019

210

0.0

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 9

3

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

91

Tabl

e con

tinue

s on

p. 9

4

Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

92

Appendix D | 93

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q46

Wha

t typ

e of

ass

essm

ent o

r eva

luat

ion

was

con

duct

ed o

n yo

ur se

nior

cap

ston

e co

urse

or e

xper

ienc

e? (C

heck

all

that

app

ly.)

Acc

redi

tatio

n43

61.4

1055

.612

63.2

6560

.7A

naly

sis o

f ins

titut

iona

l dat

a43

61.4

1266

.712

63.2

6762

.6Fo

cus g

roup

s with

inst

ruct

ors

1115

.71

5.6

631

.618

16.8

Focu

s gro

ups w

ith st

uden

ts17

24.3

15.

67

36.8

2523

.4In

divi

dual

inte

rvie

ws w

ith in

stru

ctor

s6

8.6

211

.15

26.3

1312

.1In

divi

dual

inte

rvie

ws w

ith st

uden

ts9

12.9

316

.74

21.1

1615

.0St

uden

t cou

rse

eval

uatio

n51

72.9

1794

.412

63.2

8074

.8Su

rvey

inst

rum

ent

2332

.913

72.2

1052

.646

43.0

Q47

Wha

t typ

e of

surv

ey in

stru

men

t did

you

r ins

titut

ion

use

to a

sses

s or e

valu

ate

the

seni

or c

apst

one

cour

se o

r exp

erie

nce?

(Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

A lo

cally

dev

elop

ed16

69.6

1184

.68

80.0

3576

.1A

nat

iona

l sur

vey

1773

.911

84.6

550

.033

71.7

I don

’t kn

ow.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Q48

If y

ou u

sed

a na

tiona

l sur

vey,

plea

se id

entif

y th

e su

rvey

(s):

(Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

.)

Coo

pera

tive

Inst

itut

iona

l Res

earc

h Pr

ogra

m

(CIR

P) C

olle

ge S

enio

r Sur

vey

423

.50

0.0

120

.05

15.2

Nat

iona

l Sur

vey

of S

tude

nt E

ngag

emen

t (N

SSE)

1710

0.0

1090

.94

80.0

3193

.9W

abas

h N

atio

nal S

tudy

of L

iber

al A

rts E

duca

tion

15.

90

0.0

00.

01

3.0

Oth

er0

0.0

327

.32

40.0

515

.2


Tabl

e con

tinue

d fro

m p.

93

Dis

cipl

ine-

base

d

cour

seIn

terd

isci

plin

ary

cour

se

Proj

ect-

base

d

expe

rien

ceTo

tal

Item

Surv

ey q

uest

ion

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Freq

.%

Q50

Sele

ct th

ree

outc

ome(

s) th

at w

ere

mea

sure

d us

ing

the

asse

ssm

ent(

s) o

r eva

luat

ion(

s) li

sted

abo

ve:

Con

nect

ion

to th

e di

scip

line(

s)26

37.1

633

.39

47.4

4138

.3C

onne

ctio

ns w

ith p

eers

00.

00

0.0

315

.83

2.8

Cri

tical

thin

king

, ana

lytic

al sk

ills,

or p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng sk

ills

4970

.015

83.3

1263

.276

71.0

Empl

oym

ent a

fter

col

lege

811

.40

0.0

15.

39

8.4

Entr

ance

into

gra

duat

e sc

hool

34.

30

0.0

210

.55

4.7

Gra

de-p

oint

ave

rage

57.

11

5.6

00.

06

5.6

Ora

l com

mun

icat

ion

1825

.77

38.9

526

.330

28.0

Out

-of-

clas

s stu

dent

-inst

ruct

or in

tera

ctio

n2

2.9

15.

60

0.0

32.

8Pe

rsis

tenc

e to

gra

duat

ion

11.

40

0.0

00.

01

0.9

Satis

fact

ion

with

cam

pus s

ervi

ces

00.

00

0.0

15.

31

0.9

Satis

fact

ion

with

inst

itut

ion

68.

61

5.6

315

.810

9.3

Satis

fact

ion

with

inst

ruct

or11

15.7

211

.12

10.5

1514

.0Te

amw

ork

or g

roup

wor

k4

5.7

422

.22

10.5

109.

3W

ritt

en c

omm

unic

atio

n29

41.4

1055

.69

47.4

4844

.9O

ther

1420

.04

22.2

315

.821

19.6

Q62

Rel

ease

of d

ata:

You

may

shar

e m

y su

rvey

resp

onse

s.52

40.6

1864

.333

53.2

127

47.9

Plea

se d

o no

t sha

re m

y su

rvey

resp

onse

s.76

59.4

1035

.729

46.8

138

52.1

Tota

l12

810

0.0

2810

0.0

6210

0.0

265

100.

0

95

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York.

Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five high-impact practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in higher education (New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 47). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cruce, T. M., Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). Impacts of good practices on cognitive development, learning orientations, and graduate degree plans during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 365-383.

Cuseo, J. B. (1998). Objectives and benefits of senior year programs. In J. N. Gardner, G. Van der Veer, & Associates, The senior year experience: Facilitating integration, reflection, closure, and transition (pp. 21-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cuseo, J. B. (2009a). The empirical case for the first-year seminar: Course impact on student reten-tion and academic achievement. E-Source for College Student Transitions, 6(6), 5-7.

Cuseo, J. B. (2009b). The first-year seminar: A vehicle for promoting the instructional development of college faculty. E-Source for College Student Transitions, 7(2), 4-5, 8.

Gardner, J. N., & Van der Veer, G. (1998). The emerging movement to strengthen the senior expe-rience. In J. N. Gardner, G. Van der Veer, & Associates, The senior year experience: Facilitating integration, reflection, closure, and transition (pp. 3-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, J. N., Van der Veer, G., & Associates. (1998). The senior year experience: Facilitating inte-gration, reflection, closure, and transition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goodman, K. M., Baxter Magolda, M., Seifert, T. A., & King, P. M. (2011, March-April). Good practices for student learning: Mixed-method evidence from the Wabash National Study. About Campus, 2-9.

Henscheid, J. M. (2000). Professing the disciplines: An analysis of senior seminars and capstone courses. (Monograph No. 30). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.


Keup, J. R., Gahagan, J., & Goodwin, R. N. (2010). 2008 National Survey of Sophomore-Year Initiatives: Curricular and cocurricular structures supporting the success of second-year college students (Research Reports on College Transitions No. 1). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Koch, A. K. (2001). The first-year experience in American higher education: An annotated bibliog-raphy (Monograph No. 3, 3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Koch, A. K., Foote, S. M., Hinkle, S. E., Keup, J. R., & Pistilli, M. D. (Eds.) (2007). The first-year experience in American higher education: An annotated bibliography (Monograph No. 3, 4th ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Levine, A. (1978). Handbook of undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Levine, A. (1998). A president’s personal and historical perspective. In J. N. Gardner, G. Van der

Veer, & Associates, The senior year experience: Facilitating integration, reflection, closure, and transition (pp. 51-59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2009). Assessment for improvement: Tracking student engagement over time: Annual results 2009. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Padgett, R. D., & Keup, J. R. (2011). 2009 National Survey of First-Year Seminars: Ongoing efforts to support students in transition (Research Reports on College Transitions No. 2). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Pascarella, E., Cruce, T., Umbach, P., Wolniak, G., Kuh, G., Carini, R., …& Zhao, C. (2006). In-stitutional selectivity and good practices in undergraduate education: How strong is the link? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 251-285.

Pascarella, E., Seifert, T., & Blaich, C. (2010, January/February). How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes? Change, 16-22.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research

(Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Rowles, C. J., Koch, D. C., Hundley, S. P., & Hamilton, S. J. (2004). Toward a model for capstone

experiences: Mountaintops, magnets, and mandates. Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-2, 13-15.

97

About the Authors

Ryan D. Padgett, is a senior analyst for cocurricular assessment and research at Northern Kentucky University. In this position, Padgett coordinates and directs the assessment of student learning and development and provides research, data, methodological, and survey support to the Division of Student Affairs. Prior to this role, he was the assistant director of research, grants, and assessment at the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transi-tion, where he facilitated a number of national surveys and oversaw research collaborations and grant opportunities between the National Resource Center and the higher education community and across the University of South Carolina campus. He has published multiple manuscripts on college impact, research methodology, and the first-year experience in national journals and book chapters, including 2009 National Survey of First-Year Seminars: Ongoing Efforts to Support Students in Transition (2011); Journal of College Student Development, Journal of Higher Education, and New Directions for Institutional Research. Padgett also serves on the editorial boards of the Sociology of Education Journal and the Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.

Cindy A. Kilgo is a research assistant at the Center for Research on Undergraduate Education and doctoral student in the Higher Education program at the University of Iowa. She was previ-ously a graduate assistant for Research, Grants, and Assessment at the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition at the University of South Carolina. In this role, she assisted with research endeavors at the Center, including co-authoring two national surveys. Kilgo has presented at several national conferences and has co-authored a chapter in New Directions for Institutional Research.

Documents

RR3 Capstone COVER - Sc