Download - 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
4 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
6 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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%).
8 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
10 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
12 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
14 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
16 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
18 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
(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
20 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
22 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
24 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
26 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
28 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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 non- respondents 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.
32 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
34 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
36 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
38 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
40 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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?
❍ Yes❍ No ❍ I don’t know.
29. Please describe the online components that are included in the course:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
30. Are there any online-only sections?
❍ Yes❍ No ❍ I don’t know.
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
42 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
35. Are any seniors intentionally placed in senior capstone course or experience sections taught by their academic advisors?
❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.
36. What is the approximate percentage of students placed in sections with their academic advisors?
❍ 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.
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?
❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.
39. Is instructor training required for senior capstone course or experience instructors?
❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.
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?
❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.
43. Does the dean/director/coordinator have another position on campus?
❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.
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
44 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
46 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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?
❍ Yes❍ No❍ I don’t know.
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?
❍ 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.
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
48 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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.
50 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
52 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
54 | 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
58 | 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.
%
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
60 | 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
.%
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
62 | 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
.%
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
64 | 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
.%
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
66 | 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.
%
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
68 | 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
.%
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
70 | 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.
%
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
72 | 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
.%
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
74 | 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
.%
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
76 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
78 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
80 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
82 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
84 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
86 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
88 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
90 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
92 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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
94 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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.
96 | 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences
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.