GENERAL EDUCATION
Assessment Report
Eastern Kentucky University
Fall 2013
Report Prepared by
Dr. Rose Perrine, Associate Dean University Programs; Coordinator General Education Assessment
1
General Education Assessment Report: Eastern Kentucky University
Assessment Timeline
EKU assesses all General Education courses every two years. All student learning
competencies were assessed fall 2011 – spring 2012, and a data report prepared in fall 2012.
Therefore, fall 2012 is the most recent data report available.
Eastern Kentucky University’s General Education Competencies
Eastern Kentucky University’s student learning competencies and their relationship to the
Statewide competencies can be viewed in Appendix A.
Means of Assessing Each Competency
Common assessment processes include
 All competencies are assessed with direct student-learning measures.
 Student learning is assessed at or near the end of the course.
 Assessment instruments are developed by EKU faculty who teach the General
Education courses.
 Departmental faculty members collaborate on a common assessment instrument for
each course.
 The assessment is embedded in the courses such that students are graded on the
assignment.
 Assessment instruments are unique to each course, but the same instrument is used in
all sections of a course.
 Assessment instruments can contain objective, e.g., multiple choice, and/or
subjectively-scored items, e.g., essay, papers.
 Common rubrics are applied to the student work. These rubrics were created by faculty
within each general education block, and are based on the general education
goals/student learning outcomes that are assigned to that area.
 For assessment items that yield objective responses, e.g., multiple choice, there are
established criteria for categorizing students into levels of accomplishment.
 For assessment items that yield subjectively-scored responses, categorizing students
into levels of accomplishment is based on faculty judgment. For these items
departmental faculty discuss expectations and score some student work as a team.
Once faculty members standardize their scoring then a single faculty member may
score a student’s work. Difficult or ambiguous cases are discussed as a team. Some
departments score most/all student work as a team, due to the complicated nature of
the scoring for these assignments.
 Sampling procedures: Work from a minimum of 30 students is assessed for each
course. For courses with less than 30 students, all work is assessed. For courses with
multiple sections the following procedure may be used: (Optional procedure: All
sections may be used.)
 1—10 sections: Random sample of student work drawn from all sections
 11-20 sections: Random sample of student work drawn from 10 sections*
 More than 20 sections: Random sample of student work drawn from half of the
sections
2
*Instructions to faculty about scoring assessment items, categorizing students,
sampling, preparing data reports, use of data, and commonly asked questions can be
viewed in Appendix B.
Summary of Data Collected
The data report for fall 2012 (the most recent report available) can be viewed in Appendix
C.
Use of Results
Information about how outcomes were used for faculty to improve student learning can be
viewed in Appendix D.
General Education Changes
EKU revised its GE Program, effective fall 2012. The revisions can be viewed in Appendix
E. Therefore, the next assessment data report (fall 2014) will show data from courses in
the new program.
Attachments
Common rubrics for each GE Block can be viewed in Appendix F.
Assessment instruments are described in Appendix G.
3
Appendix A
Student Learning Competencies: State and EKU Comparison
Oral and Written Communication
STATEWIDE
Competencies
EKU
Competencies
Written Communication
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Listen and speak competently
in a variety of communication
contexts, which may include
public, interpersonal, and/or
small-group settings.
Write clear and effective prose
in several forms, using
conventions appropriate to
audience (including academic
audiences), purpose, and
genre.
Find, analyze, evaluate, and cite
pertinent primary and
secondary sources, including
academic databases, to prepare
speeches and written texts.
Identify, analyze, and evaluate
statements, assumptions, and
conclusions representing
diverse points of view, and
construct informed, sustained,
and ethical arguments in
response.
Plan, organize, revise, practice,
edit, and proofread to improve
the development and clarity of
ideas.
1.
2.
3.
Demonstrating rhetorical knowledge by:
a.
Focusing on a specific purpose for
a defined audience.
b.
Defining a specific topic through a
clearly stated thesis.
c.
Constructing an effective
discourse organization.
d.
Providing adequate and relevant
supporting evidence, appropriate
documentation, and clear and
valid assumptions and
conclusions.
Applying critical thinking, reading, and
writing by:
a.
Understanding a writing
assignment as a series of tasks,
including research, understood as
finding, evaluating, analyzing,
summarizing, and synthesizing
appropriate outside sources.
b.
Integrating their own ideas with
those of others.
c.
Using various forms of technology
to support research and to
enhance written compositions.
EKU
Assessment Rubric
Written Communication
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Audience/Tone
Organization
a. Integration
b. Cohesion
Control of Written
Language
a. Sentence
Structure/Syntax
b. Word
Choice/Vocabulary
Surface Features
Information Literacy
Demonstrating control of written
language by:
a.
Controlling sentence structures
appropriate to academic writing.
b.
Controlling grammatical
conventions of written Standard
English, including word forms,
punctuation, and spelling.
4
Oral communication
1.
2.
3.
Applying critical thinking by:
a.
Utilizing various forms of technology to
effectively research, organize, and
integrate information required for
message production and delivery.
b.
Adapting oral communication styles to
appropriate contexts.
c.
Evaluating self and others’
communication skills.
Oral communication
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Structure
Content
Context
Audience awareness
Oral Delivery
Nonverbal Delivery
Presentation Aids
Demonstrating command of
communication skills by:
a.
Successfully implementing effective
verbal delivery skills related to the
context.
b.
Successfully implementing effective
nonverbal delivery skills related to the
context.
Demonstrating other-oriented perspective
by:
a.
Writing and articulating ethical issues
inherent in the message.
b.
Adhering to standards of ethical
communication in presenting one’s
views.
c.
Writing and articulating messages
appropriate for various cultures and
groups.
Oral and Written Communication
Statewide 1  EKU
Statewide 2  EKU
Statewide 3  EKU
Statewide 4  EKU
Statewide 5  EKU
5
Mathematics
STATEWIDE
Competencies
1.
Interpret information presented in
mathematical and/or statistical forms.
(LEAP B)
2.
Illustrate and communicate
mathematical and/or statistical
information symbolically, visually
and/or numerically. (LEAP A, B and C)
3.
Determine when computations are
needed and to execute the
appropriate computations; (LEAP B)
4.
Apply an appropriate model to the
problem to be solved; (LEAP A, C and
D)
5.
Make inferences, evaluate
assumptions, and assess limitations in
estimation modeling and/or statistical
analysis. (LEAP B, C and D)
EKU
Competencies
1.
Using mathematical methods to state
and solve quantitative problems,
including those stated in verbal form.
2. Using numerical and graphical data
to make reasonable and valid
conclusions.
3. Applying mathematical methods to
real life problems.
EKU
Assessment Rubric
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Comprehension
Appropriate use of
terminology and
notation
Execution of
appropriate strategies
for solving problems
Use of
mathematical/logical
operations
Interpretation of the
meaning of solutions in
the context of the
problem(s)
Integration across
course
Mathematics
Statewide 1  EKU MA 2
Statewide 2  EKU MA 2 and 3
Statewide 3  EKU MA 1, 2 and 3
Statewide 4  EKU MA 1 and 3
Statewide 5  EKU MA 2
6
Arts and Humanities
STATEWIDE
Competencies
EKU
Competencies
EKU
Assessment Rubric
Arts and Humanities
Arts and Humanities
Arts and Humanities
1.
1.
Demonstrating an understanding of
the critical thinking skills used by
artists and humanists to study, to
evaluate, and to express the human
condition.
1.
2.
3.
2.
Reflecting critically upon the
individual ideas and values expressed
in creative works.
3.
Analyzing the cultural values and
ethical issues expressed in creative
works from different cultures.
Utilize basic formal elements,
techniques, concepts and vocabulary
of specific disciplines within the Arts
and Humanities.
2. Distinguish between various kinds of
evidence by identifying reliable sources
and valid arguments.
3. Demonstrate how social, cultural, and
historical contexts influence creative
expression in the arts and humanities.
4. Evaluate the significance of human
expression and experience in shaping
larger social, cultural, and historical
contexts.
5. Evaluate enduring and contemporary
issues of human experience.
Foreign Language
4.
Comprehension
Clarity of Expression
Formal/Structural
analysis
Contextual Analysis
4. Analyzing the aesthetic qualities of
creative works.
Demonstrate competency in a foreign
language. Foreign language study develops
essential skills and cultural awareness
critical for success in a multilingual world.
Arts and Humanities
Statewide 1  EKU AH 1 and 4
Statewide 2  EKU AH 1
Statewide 3  EKU AH 2 and 3
Statewide 4  EKU AH 2 and 3
Statewide 5  EKU AH 2, 3 and 4
Foreign Language
Statewide Foreign Language SLO  EKU AH 1 and 3
7
Natural Sciences
STATEWIDE
Competencies
EKU
Competencies
EKU
Assessment Rubric
Course Outcomes
1.
Demonstrate an understanding of the
methods of science inquiry. (LEAP A
and B)
2. Explain basic concepts and principles in
one or more of the sciences. (LEAP A
and B)
3. Apply scientific principles to interpret
and make predictions in one or more of
the sciences. (LEAP A, B, and D)
4. Explain how scientific principles relate
to issues of personal and/or public
importance. (LEAP A, B, C, and D)
Block Outcome
1.
Demonstrating an understanding of
the methods by which humans gather
data and make conclusions in
biological and physical sciences.
2.
Explaining the major concepts and
fundamental processes of biological
and physical sciences.
3.
4.
Conduct a hands-on project using scientific
principles.
Applying the principles and theories of
biological and physical sciences to
make reasonable and valid
conclusions.
Applying scientific knowledge to
examine and address issues of
personal and public importance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Demonstrate an
understanding of the
methods used to
carry out scientific
inquiry.
Explaining the major
concepts of the
natural sciences.
Applying scientific
principles to make
reasonable and valid
conclusions.
Applying scientific
knowledge to
address issues of
personal and public
importance.
Integration across
course.
Natural Sciences
Course Outcomes
Statewide 1  EKU NS 1
Statewide 2  EKU NS 2
Statewide 3  EKU NS 3
Statewide 4  EKU NS 4
Block Outcome
Statewide Block Outcome  EKU NS 1, 2, 3 and 4
8
Social and Behavioral Sciences
STATEWIDE
Competencies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Demonstrate knowledge of at least one
area of the social and behavioral
sciences.
Apply knowledge, theories, and
research methods, including ethical
conduct, to analyze problems pertinent
to at least one area of the social and
behavioral sciences.
Understand and demonstrate how at
least one area of the social and
behavioral sciences conceptualizes
diversity and the ways it shapes human
experience.
Integrate knowledge of at least one
area of the social and behavioral
sciences into issues of personal or
public importance.
Communicate effectively using the
language and terminology germane to
at least one area of the social and
behavioral sciences.
EKU
Competencies
EKU
Assessment Rubric
History
1.
Demonstrating relevant perspective,
rooted in time and place, in the
analysis of historical (written and
artifactual) sources.
2.
Demonstrating an understanding of
the interactions of social, cultural,
political, religious, economic, scientific
and/or technological developments as
factors in historical change.
3.
Building and clearly communicating an
argument on the basis of historical
(written and artifactual) evidence and
documentation.
4.
Demonstrating ability to understand
change over time and the significance
and effects of historical events and
developments.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comprehension
Application and
analysis
Interpretation and
Evaluation
Methods
Integration
Social and Behavioral Science
1.
2.
3.
Demonstrating an understanding of
the methods by which social scientists
gather data and make conclusions.
Explaining the major concepts and
fundamental processes basic to the
social sciences.
Applying the principles and theories of
the social sciences to make reasonable
and valid conclusions about matters of
personal and public importance.
Arts and Humanities
Statewide 1  EKU HIS 1, 2 and 4; SB 2
Statewide 2  EKU HIS 1; SB 1
Statewide 3  EKU HIS 3 and 4
Statewide 4  EKU SB 3
Statewide 5  EKU HIS and SB (all)
9
Appendix B
Assessment Information for EKU Faculty
These instructions are on the GE website for faculty to view as needed. http://www.gened.eku.edu/
ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES for GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES
REVISED Spring 2013
Prepared by: Rose Perrine, Associate Dean University Programs rose.perrine@eku.edu; 622-6764










OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Faculty collaborate to develop assessment items for each course.
All sections of the same course must use the same assessment items and process.
A scoring rubric for each GE Block/Element guides the development of the assessment items, and Rose
Perrine is available to help as needed.
Assessment items can be exam questions (objective or open-ended), written assignments, portfolios,
papers, or oral presentations.
Good assessment is not an “add on.” Rather, it is an evaluation of student performance that provides
faculty with information that they would want regardless of whether assessment data were required.
It is best to evaluate students toward the end of the semester. We want to know what students learned
by end of the course.
Each course must be assessed twice in each four-year cycle.
For courses with multiple sections: (1) assessment items should be given to students in all sections of a
course, (2) all faculty should use the assessment items for grading purposes, but (C) samples may be
selected to be scored for assessment purposes.
Data should be aggregated across all sections chosen for assessment. The GE Committee should not see
any reports that include faculty names or CRNs.
Send data report to Rose Perrine.
EXPLANATION: THE “LEVELS” OF ACHIEVEMENT ON THE GRADING RUBRICS
When we evaluate students in our courses we can often categorize them into four levels: The students who
“get it,” (meet expectations) the students who don’t “get it,” (do not meet course expectations) and the
students who fall in between. Occasionally, we have a student who exceeds course expectations.
These levels correspond to the levels on the Grading Rubrics developed for the assessment of General Education
Courses. The levels on the Grading Rubrics ALWAYS refer to achieving the student learning outcomes for THAT
SPECIFIC COURSE.
Students who meet course expectations are Competent. Students who do not meet course expectations are
Beginning. Students who fall in between are Developing, and the occasional student who “exceeds
expectations” is Accomplished. Please do not confuse “A” work with “Accomplished.” “Accomplished” means
“exceeds courses expectations.”
HOW TO CATEGORIZE STUDENTS WHEN “OBJECTIVE” ASSESSMENT ITEMS ARE USED:
Objective items have “right and wrong” answers, e.g., multiple choice, true/false, matching, fill-in-the-blank,
short answer.
10
The grading rubrics were designed for written/oral assignments that require faculty judgment; thus, the
language within each “cell” is not useful for categorizing students with “objective” assessment items. The
following guidelines should be used with “objective” assessment items:
A.
For each criterion on the rubric (Comprehension, Methods, etc.) faculty should write at least 4 objective
items that students who are competent in that specific course should be able to answer correctly. All
sections of the same course must use the same assessment items. Thus, faculty must collaborate when
writing these items.
B.
Each criterion on the rubric must be evaluated separately. Thus, a unique set of questions must be
written for each criterion. For each criterion:
● Students who correctly answer 75--100% of the items for that criterion are “Competent” in that
criterion.
● Students who correctly answer 50--74% of the items for that criterion are “Developing” in that
criterion.
● Students who correctly answer 0—49% of the items for that criterion are “Beginning” in that
criterion.
note. It is not possible to classify students as “Accomplished” when using “objective” items.
HOW TO CATEGORIZE STUDENTS WHEN WRITTEN/ORAL ASSIGNMENTS ARE USED:
ACCOMPLISHED: Students may be categorized as “Accomplished” on written/oral assignments if they
exceed the expectations of the course for that criterion. “Accomplished” level should be used ONLY in
cases where the student clearly goes above and beyond the expectation. It is NOT just “A” work. These
expectations are defined, in very general terms, on each grading rubric.
COMPETENT: Students may be categorized as “Competent” on written/oral assignments if they meet
the expectations of the course for that criterion. These expectations are defined, in very general terms,
on each grading rubric.
DEVELOPING. Student’s performance on assessment items does not fully meet the expectations for
that criterion, but is not totally “off base” either. (Performance is incomplete in meeting expectations
for that criterion.) These expectations are defined, in very general terms, on each grading rubric.
BEGINNING: Student’s performance does not meet expectations for that criterion. These expectations
are defined, in very general terms, on each grading rubric.
11
GE-2006 and GE-2012
Assessment Schedule for General Education Courses: Fall 2012 – Spring 2016
Eastern Kentucky University
Interim Associate Dean University Programs: Rose Perrine rose.perrine@eku.edu
DATE
Document Date: Spring 2012
TASKS
Fall 2010--Spring 2011
ALL GE-2006 courses should have been assessed (f2010 or sp2011).
Fall 2011—Spring 2012
Score student work, prepare data report, and meet with faculty to
discuss use of data. Modify instruments, processes, and/or curricula as
needed. Send data report and use of data to Rose BY MAY 1, 2012.
Fall 2012—Spring 2013
Assess ALL GE-2006* & GE-2012 courses (f2012 or Sp2013).
*This will be the last required assessment for GE-2006 courses that are
not also in GE-2012. For Block/Elements V/5 and Element 6 use most
recent rubrics (created summer 2012)
Fall 2013—Spring 2014
Score student work, prepare data report, and meet with faculty to
discuss use of data. Modify instruments, processes, and/or curricula as
needed. Send data report and use of data to Rose BY MAY 1, 2014.
Spring 2014
GE Committee reapproves all GE-2006 courses. Reapproval will be
automatic for those courses for which two data reports and use of data
have been sent to Rose. Departments will not need to request
reapproval. No additional assessments are required for GE-2006
courses that are not also in GE-2012.
Fall 2014—Spring 2015
Assess ALL GE-2012 (f2014 or Sp2015).
Fall 2015—Spring 2016
Score student work, prepare data report, and meet with faculty to
discuss use of data. Modify instruments, processes, and/or curricula as
needed. Send data report and use of data to Rose BY MAY 1, 2016.
Spring 2016
GE Committee reapproves all GE-2012 courses. Reapproval will be
automatic for those courses for which two data reports and use of data
have been sent to Rose. Departments will not need to request
reapproval.
Suggested Sampling Procedures for Multi-Section Courses
If a course has multiple sections, it is sometimes difficult to get data/assessment assignments from all sections.
In an attempt to reduce the burden of getting all data, the following procedure may be used: (Optional
procedure: All sections may be used.)
12



1—10 sections:
11-20 sections:
More than 20 sections:
Assessment data from all sections
Assessment data from 10 sections*
Assessment data from 1/2 of the sections*
*Please select sections to be included in data report by randomly selecting from the following groups: (a)
Richmond campus; (b) Extended campuses; (c) On-line courses; (D) Part-time faculty; (E) Full-time faculty. We
understand that these groups are not mutually exclusive, but are provided as examples of populations that
should be included in sample.
Please note. The procedure of having all instructors in all sections collect the assessment assignment/data
should be enforced, i.e., all students should complete the assignment. The only change is that the person
responsible for gathering all the assignments/data now has the option of “nagging” only a subset of instructors
to get those assignments/data at the end of the semester.
This new procedure is optional and is intended to help those departments who have problems getting
data/assignments from every section.
Chairs. Chairs may want use the data to compare the performance of students in the various groups, e.g., online vs campus courses. However, data should be aggregated before sending to Rose.
How many students’ assignment do we need to grade? If the assignment is easy to grade (e.g. scantrons) then
grading all of the students’ work is desirable. If the assignment is more time-consuming to grade, then choose a
random sample: (1) For 1—10 sections choose about 10% of the students’ work, with a minimum of 30 students;
(2) For more than 10 sections choose about 5% of the students’ work. Fewer students may be chosen for the
sample when the assignment is unusually difficult to evaluate, e.g., oral presentation videos, portfolios. Please
contact Rose Perrine for guidance.
You do NOT need to have the same sample size for each criterion. For example, if your assessment instrument
includes multiple choice items to measure “Comprehension,” and an essay to measure “Integration,” then you
might report all students’ scores for “Comprehension,” and a sample of 30 students for integration.
EXAMPLE OF DATA SUMMARY & USE OF DATA
Course: PST 101
Data from: Spring 2011
Report prepared by: Mary Chang
Number of sections assessed: 4
Assessment Task: Comprehension and Methods were assessed via 60 multiple-choice items on the final exam.
Clarity of Expression, Formal Analysis, Theoretical Application, and Integration were assessed via a paper.
Sample: Four sections of the course were offered in spring 2011 (total 100 students). All students’ exams were
assessed for Comprehension and Methods. A random sample of 10 student papers from each section were
selected and graded by a committee for Clarity of Expression, Formal Analysis, Theoretical Application and
Integration.
13
Data Summary (NUMBER of students in each category)
PST 101: Spring 2011
Criteria
Comprehension
Clarity of Expression
Formal/Structural
Analysis
Contextual Analysis
Sample*
Size
100 (all
students in 4
sections)
40 (random
sample of 10
students from
each of 4
sections)
40 (random
sample)
4Accomp
N/A
(multiple-choice
items)
0
3Compet
40
2Develop
30
1Begin
30
20
20
0
5
10
20
15
NA
X
Theoretical
Application
Methods
Integration
40 (random
5
20
sample)
100 (all)
N/A
90
40 (random
0
35
sample)
* Sample Size column needed only if sample size varies by criterion.
15
10
10
5
0
0
EXAMPLE: USE OF DATA
Comprehension and Methods. The distribution of scores for Comprehension appears reasonable. However,
there were 5 comprehension items that few students answered correctly. The faculty judged all 5 items to be
important, and have discussed how those concepts could be emphasized and illustrated more in future classes.
We have agreed to include the PST Paper #3c as an assigned reading in each class, as it emphasizes the concepts
that we think are important.
The distribution for Methods does not appear reasonable because 90% of the students were assessed as
“competent.” This does not reflect the students’ performance on other assignments in the course. The faculty
discussed the assessment items for methods and determined that they are challenging, but that faculty were
more-or-less teaching to the test by using the same examples in class as are on the exam. We agreed to NOT
use the same variables and concepts in any class examples that appear on the exam. We agreed on a set of
examples that could be used in class and will check this item on the next assessment to see how students
perform.
Clarity of Expression, Formal Analysis, Theoretical Application & Integration. 50% of students were
“developing” on Clarity of Expression. Because most students in this course have not completed ENG 101 and
102, this seems like a realistic distribution. Faculty have discussed ways to help students write with more clarity,
and next semester will begin some practice writing, with feedback, in several class sessions. We have agreed to
use the TCAC Book that was written by a team of EKU faculty involved in the TCAC program. The book has
several lesson plans and suggestions for helping students become better writers. We also agreed to use the
Noel Studio to present short lessons to students, and to encourage students to visit the Noel Studio often.
14
The distribution of scores for Integration does not appear reasonable. Faculty perceptions are that students do
not integrate material well, but assessment scores suggest that a majority of students are competent. Faculty
re-visited the integration part of the paper and realized that the assignment did not require students to
integrate material on their own. Rather, in class, faculty tended to integrate the material for the students, and
in the papers, students reiterated what the instructors had previously integrated. Faculty have agreed to modify
their teaching strategies to demonstrate integration of material in class, but not use the same material that
students are later required to integrate in the papers. We discussed several integration examples that we could
present in class that do not use the variables students are expected to integrate on the assessment exam.
Send Data Summary and Use of Data to rose.perrine@eku.edu
COMMON QUESTIONS: ASSESSEMENT of GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES
1.
WHAT AM I ASSESSING?
You are assessing the general education goals that the course addresses. These general education goals appear
on the course syllabus in all sections of the course.
2.
WHY NOT JUST USE COURSE GRADES?
Course grades are based on a combination of various course assignments. A student who makes a “B” in
a course may have earned an “A” on three exams, and a “D” on a research paper. The global grade of “B”
provides no information regarding in which parts of the course the student performed better or worse.
On the other hand, assessment results for this student might indicate that he/she performed well only on
lower-level thinking tasks, such as comprehension of information, which is often evaluated with exams.
Assessment results might show that this same student performed poorly on higher-level thinking tasks,
such as integration of material, which might be evaluated via a written assignment, or essay questions on
an exam.
3.
HOW DO WE KNOW ASSESSMENT ITEMS ARE VALID?
The issue of validity (do items measure the construct accurately?) is no different for an assessment
instrument than it is for a test. One type of validity that is important for academic tests is content validity,
which refers to whether assessment items (or test items) reflect a specific domain of content. Thus,
assessment items for a math course might include decisions regarding which formulas to use, calculations
of equations, and interpretations of results. By creating assessment items that fit each criterion on the
Rubric, assessment items are likely to have better content validity than many tests. Ultimately, the validity
of the assessment instrument reflects that knowledge base of the people who created it. This is why
assessment instruments should be created by faculty experts. When a group of experts collaborate on
creating assessment items, the validity is likely to be better than when only one expert creates items.
4.
HOW DO WE DEVELOP AN ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT?
First, Departments should strive to involve as many faculty as possible in the creation of an assessment
instrument. Faculty should discuss what they perceive as the important aspects of a course, note the
commonalities, and agree on a “core set” of course material. Faculty should then collaborate on developing
assessment items that (a) measure this core set of material, and (b) fit the criteria on the Rubrics.
Second, faculty should discuss the procedure for administering the assessment items. The assessment items
should be embedded in an exam or assignment that is given later in the semester in order to test what students
have learned in the course. All faculty should give the assessment at a similar time and in a similar context.
Students should be told the same thing about the assessment – specifically, NOTHING that you would not normally
say about an exam. It is not necessary to tell students that X% of this exam is assessment of GE course objectives.
15
To some degree, every exam in GE courses should be measuring the GE course objectives. From a student’s point
of view there is no difference between assessment items and test items.
5.
HOW DO WE GRADE THE ASSESSMENT ITEMS?
Individual faculty should grade their students’ assessment items, use the score as part of the students’ grade, and
use the overall results to determine potential strengths and weaknesses of his/her individual course. This
individual grading may or may not be standardized. For example, if the assessment involves a research paper, one
faculty member might decide to weight the literature review 30%, while another faculty member may weight the
literature review only 10%. However, these scores are for the individual faculty members’ use; they are not the
scores that are reported for assessment purposes.
For purposes of reporting assessment results, data from all sections should be aggregated. Thus, instructors might
submit to a committee all the assessment exams/papers. That committee might select a random sample and grade
(or re-grade) the items according the Rubric. At least two faculty members should grade several assignments to
check for reliability in grading procedures. If grading appears to be reliable for several assignments, then one
faculty person could grade each assignment, while collaborating with the other grader when necessary.
Scoring student work in a group provides opportunities for faculty to discuss common errors, and strengths and
weakness of students, and provides opportunities to discuss potential changes to the assessment instrument,
process, instructions to students, and/or course lesson plans.
16
Appendix C
EKU: General Education Data Report Fall 2012
Course-level assessment Fall 2010—Spring 2012
(Second Year of Four-Year Cycle)
OVERVIEW
EKU’s revised General Education Program began in Fall 2006. Courses in the program are approved for four
years only, and must be reapproved by the General Education Committee to remain in the program. Fall 2010
began our second four-year cycle.
All courses are due to be assessed the first and third years of the cycle (2010—11 & 2012—13). Data reports
and use of data are due the second the fourth years of the cycle (2011—12 & 2013—14). For this report data
were analyzed for 164/165 of courses taught between Fall 2010—Spring 2012.
STATUS OF ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The Associate Dean of University Programs serves as the GE assessment coordinator, reviews data, and provides
feedback to each department regarding their assessment instrument, data summary, and use of data.
Regarding all of these components, significant progress has been made over the past six years. All courses now
have valid assessment instruments that have been adopted by faculty, and processes for collecting and
analyzing assessment data within departments are established. Use of data has moved from a focus on
instrument refinement to a focus on improving student learning. A report on how data have been used is
included in this document.
CRITERION FOR SUCCESS

85% of students who complete general education courses will achieve the competences for that course.
The competencies for a course are criteria on the GE block-specific, course-level scoring rubric used to evaluate
students’ responses on the assessment instrument. Competencies and criteria on each rubric are based on the
GE goals addressed by each block. A subset of the criteria on each rubric is defined as “critical thinking” based
on the definition of critical thinking used by the University. Because EKU’s QEP is focused on critical thinking,
data for critical thinking are presented separately.
Operational Definition of “achieve.” In many cases the “developing” level of accomplishment may be evidence
of meeting the learning objective because in a single general education course significant learning can occur
even if students have not yet reached a “competent” level. Thus, in the data report “achieve” is defined as the
percent of students who were evaluated as “accomplished,” “competent,” or “developing.”
DATA SUMMARY
Data were analyzed by calculating the percent of students who were evaluated as “accomplished,”
“competent,” and “developing” for each criterion, by GE Block. Summary data by GE Block, collapsed across all
criteria, are reported in Table 1.
Interpretation of Data
The percent of students who achieved the general education competencies ranged from 74 - 94%. The criterion
of 85% of students achieving competencies was met in the 8/11 GE Blocks/areas.
17
Table 1. Students’ Achievement of General Education Competencies by Block
% Achieving GE
Competencies
Aggregated Across All
Rubric Criteria
Aggregated Across
Critical Thinking
Criteria Only
I a/b: Written Communication
85
81
I c: Oral Communication
88
92
II: Mathematics
85
85
III & VII: Arts & Humanities
88
98
IV & VII: Natural Sciences
74
68
V & VII: Historical and Social Sciences
81
76
VI: Wellness
94
95
VIII: Foreign Languages
85
85
VIII: American Sign Language
87
87
VIII: Race, Gender, Sexuality Theme
81
81
VIII: Society, Technology, Values Theme
89
88
GE BLOCK
GENERAL EDUCATION CORE
EKU SPECIFIC
18
Students’ Achievement of General Education Competencies by Block and Rubric Criteria
COMPETENCY
(Rubric Criterion)
GE BLOCK
N
%
Achieved
GE Competency
I a/b: Written Communication
2 courses
Audience/Tone (CT)
Organization: Integration (CT)
Organization: Cohesion (CT)
Sentence Structure/Syntax
Word Choice/Vocabulary
Surface Features
Information Literacy
Total Across all Criteria & Courses
Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria
147
147
147
147
147
147
149
90
74
78
89
96
93
74
85
81
109
107
100
109
101
109
101
80
97
90
86
92
88
85
88
92
493
455
88
81
489
85
414
432
500
82
85
86
85
85
I c: Oral Communication
2 courses
Structure
Content (CT)
Context
Audience Awareness (CT)
Oral Delivery
Nonverbal Delivery
Presentation Aids
Total Across all Criteria & Courses
Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria
II & VII (qs): Quantitative
22 courses
Comprehension (CT)
Use of Terminology/Notation (CT)
Execution:
Strategies for Problem Solving (CT)
Use of Math/Logical Operations (CT)
Interpretation: Meaning of Solutions (CT)
Integration (CT)
Total Across all Criteria & Courses
Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria
19
COMPETENCY
(Rubric Criterion)
GE BLOCK
N
%
Achieved
GE Competency
III & VII (ah):Arts & Humanities
33 courses
Comprehension
Clarity of Expression (CT)
Formal/Structural Analysis (CT)
Contextual Analysis (CT)
Theoretical Application (CT)
Methods
Integration (CT)
Total Across all Criteria & Courses
Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria
1274
1111
931
1008
921
825
1263
88
90
83
89
91
87
89
88
89
2920
2908
88
76
2919
64
1670
83
2918
64
74
68
2454
2426
503
2429
2383
90
81
66
83
73
81
76
IV & VII (ns):Natural Science
25 courses
Methods
Major Concepts
Application:
Reasonable & Valid Conclusions (CT)
Application:
Issues of Personal/Public Import (CT)
Integration (CT)
Total Across all Criteria & Courses
Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria
V & VII (sbs): Historical and Social Sciences
28 courses
Comprehension
Application & Analysis (CT)
Interpretation & Evaluation (CT)
Methods
Integration (CT)
Total Across all Criteria & Courses
Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria
.
20
Appendix D
Use of Results for General Education Course Assessment
SAMPLE Statements from Departments regarding USE OF DATA
First Two Years of a Four-Year Cycle: General Education Program
Fall 2010 – Spring 2012
Note from GE Assessment Coordinator. This document contains sample statements provided by departments
regarding faculty use of GE assessment data during the first two years of the second four-year cycle of EKU’s
General Education Program (fall 2010 – spring 2012). A few departments are still refining assessment
instruments and processes, and, thus, their use-of-data statements focus on validating the instruments, and
revising processes. However, we made significant progress in the first four-year GE cycle (fall 2006—spring 2010)
in helping departments develop and refine valid instruments, and we are now more focused on helping faculty
understand how to use data to improve student learning. The use-of-data statements below demonstrate that
progress, and show that most departments are using GE data to improve student learning.
SAMPLE USE OF DATA STATEMENTS
BLOCK I: COMMUNICATION
ENG 101/102: Research, Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric
The 2010 course evaluation indicated that students did not employ enough visual rhetoric in their papers. To
deal with that problem, that summer’s workshop focused on how and why graphic design could/should be
employed in student papers. The emphasis was not the creation of graphics but their rhetorical ability to
enhance a message. The workshop included group work and actual analysis of graphics to better understand the
role of visual rhetoric in modern academic writing. The 2010 evaluation also suggested that instructors needed
additional training in writing comments on student papers. In the summer workshop in 2011, we discussed
giving students a clear sense in the end comment of what the student needs to improve but also to suggest ways
that the student could improve. To that end, we had a practice session where instructors individually graded a
sample paper, wrote end comments, and shared responses with the group. That exercise, I intended, would also
help to more closely standardize the grades given at EKU in 101 and 102.
ENG 105: First Year Writing Seminar
The 2008 evaluation indicated few problems with superior scores in all areas, but the 2010 evaluation showed
trouble some problems ranging from mechanical deficiencies to poor research and organizational skills. The
scores were so egregiously low that I requested that we re-test the 105 students again this Fall (2011), thinking
that their scores were some sort of anomaly. I shared the scores with the 105 instructors and apprised them of
the poor scores. If I were to use just the 2010 results, I would have to completely re-think the teaching of that
course. It is my belief that re-testing the 105 students would help clarify whether the miserable 2010 scores
were or were not representative the normal population for that course, and therefore more clearly identify
what the problem areas for 105 really are. (note. re-testing is taking place.)
I have more extensive notes on what happened in those summer all-day workshops. Since I supervise a large
number of instructors, individual conferences with instructors to improve their instructors have not been
detailed here, but I speak often with as many of the 50 instructors as possible. This week, for example, I have
spoken with three different instructors. But I have also taken more general measures that I believe will improve
the overall instruction in composition, including a year-long training program for potential online instructors; the
21
collection and analysis of the syllabi of all instructors in all sections of composition, offering suggestions and
changes when warranted; the addition of computer-networked instruction; the appearances of the authors of
two of our textbooks who clarified for our instructors the purpose and best use of their books; and almost
weekly messages from me to instructors about new pedagogical materials, committees in the composition and
their work, announcements of writing contests open to our students, helpful websites, textbooks designed for
specific student problems in composition, the availability of book-length support materials through one of our
publisher, and any matters relevant to the teaching of composition our instructors need to know about ( I have
written two this week). I also encourage instructors to come to me with any pedagogical or student problems
(many have), and see me as a resource person in composition instruction. To that end, I hold generous office
hours so that I can also offer an instructor a convenient time to meet with me. I also attend the Conference on
College Composition and Communication to sit in on sessions dealing with the supervision of instructors and
new methodologies that could improve instruction. Finally, I subscribe to two professional journals that also
offer insight into improving instruction.
CMS 100: Introduction to Human Communication
The faculty felt that our most recent general education assessment cycle yielded more accurate results, as
improvements in the data collection methods were made, the sample sizes were quite a bit larger, and the
quality of the data itself increased. This time, data for CMS 100 and 210 was collected and analyzed separately,
providing insights targeted to the goals of each course. Because we felt more confident that our results were
generalizable this time, the results of the CMS 100 assessment were shared at the annual faculty retreat for all
of those involved in teaching the general education courses. While the course syllabus did not alter significantly,
many additional resources to help faculty teaching CMS 100 better address message structure, oral delivery, and
nonverbal delivery (in terms of the oral communication criteria) were provided. Since the opening of the Noel
Studio for Academic Creativity, faculty have also introduced students to the resources available to them there,
including help in research (to bolster content and organization of content) and access to practice facilities to
reinforce verbal and nonverbal communication fluency. Data gathered through this assessment cycle also
informed faculty about the ongoing need to reinforce critical thinking competencies, particularly in message
comprehension, analysis, selection of quality evidence/supporting materials, and perspective-taking. Faculty
members were given resources from the QEP office to supplement the Paul & Elder Miniature Guide publication
currently required in CMS 100. Faculty members spent time discussing these resources and received specific
training on how to utilize the new resources at the retreat, along with pedagogical strategies to foster enhanced
critical thinking.
CMS 210: Public Speaking
GE assessment strategies for the most recent assessment cycle improved since the last time data were collected.
The sample size was larger and the quality of the data for analysis increased. This time, data for CMS 100 and
210 was collected and analyzed separately, providing insights targeted to the goals of each course. Given the
number of sections of CMS 210 offered each year, the faculty felt the results of the assessment were
representative of students taking CMS 210 and helpful in terms of making adjustments to the course. The
assessment data were used first of all as an indicator of how many CMS 210 students actually possess
competent public communication skills -- many more than we had thought. Thus, this data served as
confirmation that faculty and students are meeting criteria better than "suspected." Data indicated, however,
that CMS 210 faculty and students need to work more on audience awareness and analysis, as demonstrated in
the speeches. Both the evaluated speeches and the accompanying outlines indicated the need for students to
explore other perspectives, to consider audience points-of-view and subsequent message adaptation to better
accomplish oral communication goals. At the annual CMS 100/210 faculty retreat, these specific assessment
results were shared and discussed. Since there are a variety of activities and resources faculty members can
22
access to address these issues, no single strategy for improvement was advanced. Faculty recognize, however,
that the development and implementation of a common assignment (across all sections of CMS 210) would be
helpful both to reinforce audience-awareness requirements and to better assess the extent to which students
are developing their other-orientation.
BLOCK II &VII (qs): MATHEMATICS & QUANTITATIVE SKILLS
MAT (sample of mathematics courses)
The Mathematics Service Committee was unimpressed with the results, but noted that the results are
inconclusive due to the small sample size sample size, the data seem to indicate that most students are
performing at reasonable levels. To address the problems that a portion of the students in the class have we
will try to enforce prerequisites for the class, catch struggling students early and suggest remedial work, and
encourage students who need to drop back to lower level math classes to strengthen their background.
The committee observed that placing the assessment questions at the end of the exam probably made it more
likely that students, out of exhaustion and frustration, would skip them by the time they had spent almost 2
hours on the exam. Hence, we decided to place the questions at the beginning of the exam in future semesters.
Furthermore, many students refuse put commensurate effort into non-multiple-choice questions—believing
that the odds of a higher score lie with multiple-choices questions. The committee suggested that instructors
emphasize to the students the use of performance on the assessment questions in deciding borderline course
grades.
College algebra has been identified by the Mathematical Association of America as one of the “gateway”
courses: nationally it suffers from a 25-plus-year trend in poor preparation by college-bound students. It will
probably take significant time for reforms in pre-college education in Kentucky and recruitment by EKU from a
small pool of qualified students to gain much traction against this trend.
The committee has come to the conclusion over several years that the Spring courses’ students are qualitatively
different that those in Fall courses in Mat 107. Therefore, we need to sample the Fall 2012 cohort, rather than
the Spring 2013.
The committee also noted that the results are inconclusive due to the small sample size sample size (10) relative
to the number of students taking MAT 107.
PHI 100: Practical Reasoning
Faculty made changes to PHI 100 in the Fall of 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The
data indicated that the area of Operations required the most effort in terms of improving student learning. In
response to the data concerning Operations, instructors provide more opportunities for students to compare
and discuss their answers to exercises covering specific logical concepts, skills, and techniques, e.g., having
individual students share their answers with the class or in small groups.
STA 215: Introduction to Statistical Reasoning
While the scores are generally low, they are still generally better than the scores from the last round of
assessment, which was completed in the spring semester of 2009; they are substantially better than the scores
23
from the assessment that was completed in the spring semester of 2007. In particular, the reduction in the
number of 1’s from 2009 to 2011 is encouraging. The faculty would still like to see more 3’s in all areas.
An increased use of technology was recommended in 2007, and since then some instructors have begun using
online homework. Syllabi were adjusted to say that a two-variable scientific calculator is required and that the
instructor will use a TI-83 or TI-84; this positive change has been maintained. Since the 2011 data indicate that
student performance is headed in the right direction, faculty members plan to continue to use technology to
help students to understand concepts without struggling with computations.
The 2009 report indicated that hiring another tenure-track statistician might ultimately result in better
assessment scores in STA 215 because it would be helpful if there were more experts in the field of statistics
available to teach introductory statistics courses, and having another full-time statistician in the department
would mean that there would be someone else to provide fresh ideas and help with curriculum development. In
2011, the department hired another tenure-track statistician, a department chair who is also a statistician, and
two new lecturers with backgrounds in statistics. These additions to the department are expected to have
positive effects on introductory statistics courses and statistics courses in general.
The Statistics Curriculum Committee met on March 12, 2012, and discussed the possibility of changing the STA
215 textbook. They decided to keep the Moore text for at least one more year but to try using a new homework
system that will provide students with more resources.
The Department of Mathematics and Statistics has continued to make efforts to see that students come to
college prepared to do college-level mathematics. The statistics faculty members are hoping that these efforts
will ultimately result in better assessment scores in STA 215.
STA 270: Applied Statistics
The committee adopted a new text for the Fall 2011 semester. This text is more rigorous, focuses on
interpretation, includes more probability, and uses MyStatLab for online homework. Instructors have found
MyStatLab to be more effective for homework than the previous online homework system due to the extra
“helps.” Clickers are still being used by some faculty to reinforce concepts in the class. Beginning in the Fall
2011, students can take a 1-credit-hour STA 270 laboratory class to reinforce the material they are learning in
their classes.
The results are an improvement from assessment in 2009, so the faculty members feel they are moving in the
right direction.
BLOCK III &VII (ah): ARTS & HUMANITIES
AFA 201: The African Experience
Faculty studied the assessment data from AFA 201/202 In Spring 2009 and 2010. In comparing the data and
evaluating areas of strengths and weaknesses as provided by the data, faculty made changes to the course in
Fall 2010 and subsequent semesters. Student learning outcomes were revaluated and modified to more
accurately target and measure learning. In addition to proven instructional strategies, such group work and
collaboration among class members, classroom simulations and role-playing, students were encouraged to
attend outside events and interact with speakers as a way to broaden their viewpoints and encourage outside
research on topics of interest. Instructors provided greater guidance as students initiated and completed work
24
on the major class writing assignment. In order to provide further clarity on the subject and help resolve any
research issues students may be experiencing, one-on-one-conferences were required of all students after
abstracts and paper proposals were submitted to the instructor. All students were also advised to either visit the
Writing Center or schedule a follow-up conference with the instructor to facilitate proper use of textual
evidence, primary and secondary source documentation and formatting as well as clarity of expression.
ARH 390: Survey of Art History I
Data collected between Fall 2010-the present indicates that students enrolled in ARH 390 continue to be
primarily assessed as Accomplished, Competent, or Developing, in all criteria categories with the majority
assessed as Competent. Again, Theoretical Application and Integration Across Course remain two criteria where
students did not assess as consistently high, as is Contextual Analysis (i.e. a few more students assessed at
Developing in these criteria than in other criteria, but the majority of the students did indeed assess at
Competent). Because the variations in assessment numbers remain so slight, the committee plans to
recommended individual faculty self-evaluate their teaching methods, in consultation with the Gen Ed
committee, to determine how best to strengthen student accomplishment in the areas in question. It should be
noted here that ARH 390 is included in Gen Ed block 7 and 8, two blocks that have been eliminated with the
recent Gen Ed re-structuring. As such, ARH 390 may not be a Gen ED offering in the future.
ARH 391: Survey of Art History II
Data collected between Fall 2010-the present indicates that students enrolled in ARH 391 continue to be
primarily assessed as Accomplished, Competent, or Developing in all criteria categories with the majority
assessed as Competent. Formal Structural Analysis, Methods, and Integration Across Course are criteria where
students did not assess as consistently high (i.e. a few more students assessed at Developing in these criteria
than in other criteria, but the majority of the students did indeed assess at Competent). Because the variations
in assessment numbers remain so slight, the committee plans to recommended individual faculty self-evaluate
their teaching methods, in consultation with the Gen Ed committee, to determine how best to strengthen
student accomplishment in the areas in question. It should be noted here that ARH 391 is included in Gen Ed
block 7 and 8, two blocks that have been eliminated with the recent Gen Ed re-structuring. As such, ARH 391
may not be a Gen ED offering in the future.
ART 200: Art Appreciation
Data collected between Fall 2010-the present indicates that students enrolled in ART 200 continue to be
primarily assessed as Competent, Developing, or Beginning in all criteria categories, with the majority assessed
as Developing or Beginning. The Gen Ed committee believes that the course content for ART 200 is sound and
theorizes that our previous recommendations failed to strengthen assessment scores in large part because there
has been a great deal of turn-over in the faculty and instructors who teach ART 200 over the past few years and
the committee may not have communicated our Gen Ed goals to these new faculty as thoroughly as needed.
The committee continues to theorize that immature writing skills account for assessment scores at the lower
end of the spectrum, and likewise continues to support oral presentations and writing assignments within the
curriculum as a means of improving students’ ability to express their comprehension and analysis of course
content. The committee plans to more thoroughly communicate our Gen Ed goals to new or part-time faculty
teaching ART 200 in the future. We also plan to mandate, rather than simply recommend, both an oral
presentation and a written essay component as evaluation methods in all sections of ART 200. The committee
also plans to re-evaluate the assessment question that we currently have set for ART 200, in tandem with the
faculty who teach the course, to better determine if the question requires more art historical, cross-period
comprehension and analysis than is realistic of students enrolled in an Art Appreciation course are realistically
25
prepared for (i.e. the current question reads very similar to the questions prepared for ARH 390 and 390, but
those two courses provide much more cross-period art historical interpretation and analysis than an Art
Appreciation course could or even should).
BEM 350/351: Cinema History I & II
Faculty used data to further implement changes to instructor/student interaction in an effort to enhance
student collaboration in the learning process. Small group workshops were scheduled to take place in the library
during class, with the instructor fielding questions from student groups who responded to an in-class research
assignment.
ENG 210/211/212: English Literature
In comparison with the Fall 2009 assessment, our work in General Education in Literature is showing a
distinctive move upward. The dismissal of the common prompt most likely contributed to the improvement.
Faculty have developed common lesson plans to improve students’ understanding of the concepts. We are
making more use of the Noel Studio to help students improve their writing skills.
ENR 112: Academic Literacy and Learning
Reading faculty met and discussed the results of the assessment and the need for continued emphasis on
summarizing and analyzing strategies.
FCC: Culture and Civilization (sample courses)
Future uses of these results: The portfolios are working well in their present format. The current events section
should be expanded somewhat, since France is so consistently in the news. A larger selection of films to choose
from will be allowed, based on student suggestions in many cases,
How I use this data: I use this data to determine whether to slow down/accelerate the pace in class, reading
assignment amount, and topics for group discussion.
HON 205: Honors Humanities I
An Excel spreadsheet containing the data was e-mailed to Honors Humanities instructors. The selected students
performed best (in terms of the percentage of 3’s and 4’s) in Clarity, with 70% of the papers demonstrating
Competent or Accomplished skills. The papers were scored lowest in Contextual Analysis and Integration. Most
students in the sample seem to have a basic command of standard English (Clarity of Expression) and engage in
rudimentary organizational strategies, such as paragraphing. Most essays seem to lack depth of understanding
(Comprehension), but students comprehend and can apply the most general concepts.
There is a problem in that the assignment was not exactly the same for all papers. Because some of the written
assignments submitted for assessment required students to integrate texts from throughout the semester,
whereas others asked students to consider only two works assigned in the last unit of the course, it was more
difficult to estimate in the latter case the success with which students were able to integrate themes from
throughout the course than it was in the former. The inconsistencies in the assignment directions could explain
some of the perceived weaknesses in the areas of Contextual Analysis and Integration. Also, in this reading one
grader noted that she basically applied the wording of the rubric rather than the headings (meets expectations
26
of the course, etc.) and that the descriptions in the rubric may not correlate with the realities of real course
standards.
While one Humanities professor who scored papers does not think the individual strengths and weakness of the
writing submitted by students is effectively captured by assigning to them numbers corresponding to each of the
criteria listed on the rubric, he did find that it became clear in reading these essays together that the best essays
tended to be those with the most clearly identifiable argumentative structure and in which the authors
frequently employed brief citations from the relevant texts to support the claims advanced in their essays. These
are effective writing strategies, the development of which Humanities instructors will continue to seek to
cultivate in students in their courses.
The Honors Program recently revised the honors curriculum and obtained approval for the revisions from the
university. Under the new curriculum, a Humanities sequence is no longer required. The Honors Program hosted
its first workshop designed to aid faculty members in developing new interdisciplinary courses on May 8, 2012.
More opportunities for course planning and development should follow. The Honors Program Director and
Associate Director are also working with the General Education Assessment Coordinator to establish a
programmatic assessment system.
HON 308: Special Topics
While students showed competence in Comprehension and Contextual Analysis using primary and secondary
sources, they seemed challenged to articulate their ideas clearly. The instructor learned that even though most
students who take the course are juniors, their writing skills and research methods were still developing. Hence,
the instructor will do the following: (1) provide more specific writing and evaluation guidelines; and (2) request
students to provide early drafts of their papers to examine and go over in one-on-one conferences instead of
waiting until the end of the semester, when students have no chance to learn from their mistakes.
The Honors Program recently revised the honors curriculum and obtained approval for the revisions from the
university. Under the new curriculum, all sections of HON 308 will be Writing Intensive. The Honors Program
hosted its first workshop designed to aid faculty members in developing new interdisciplinary courses on May 8,
2012. More opportunities for course planning and development should follow. The Honors Program Director
and Associate Director are also working with the General Education Assessment Coordinator to establish a
programmatic assessment system.
HON 306: Honors Humanities II
Excel spreadsheets containing the data were e-mailed to Honors Humanities instructors. The data continue to
indicate that making the HON Humanities courses writing intensive has allowed the instructors to make the
process of writing more of a focus within the course.
The papers evaluated for Written Communication show their strongest area to be “Surface Features,” followed
by both “Audience/Tone” and “Control of Written Language (Word Choice/Vocabulary).” The areas deemed
weakest by the evaluator were “Information Literacy,” followed by “Organization/Integration.” Thus, the Honors
Humanities faculty may wish to focus instruction on ways to “select relevant, accurate, appropriate, and
significant sources” (the description of the “accomplished/4” category for “Information Literacy”) and to “fairly
and accurately synthesize sources and integrate relevant information, with significant depth and breadth” (the
description of the “4” category for “Organization/Integration”).
27
When evaluated for Critical Thinking, the strongest area in these same five papers was “Synthesis,” while the
weakest area was “Application.” The description of the 4 ranking for “Application” is “Accurately applies relevant
concepts/theories in different contexts and in novel/creative manner.” The instructors will continue to stress
instructions on how to build an argument by accurately applying concepts from philosophical texts to literary
works.
In the papers evaluated for Arts & Humanities, the strongest areas were “Comprehension” and “Clarity,” each
garnering a score of “3/Competent” in 6 out of the 10 papers. The weakest area was “Contextual Analysis,” with
3 scores of “1/Beginning.” Thus, the Honors Humanities faculty should continue to think of ways to incorporate
contextual information into the course concerning the primary readings, although this concern might also be
seen as being more in the domain of the Honors Civilization course sequence.
The Honors Program recently revised the honors curriculum and obtained approval for the revisions from the
university. Under the new curriculum, a Humanities sequence is no longer required. The Honors Program hosted
its first workshop designed to aid faculty members in developing new interdisciplinary courses on May 8, 2012.
More opportunities for course planning and development should follow. The Honors Program Director and
Associate Director are also working with the General Education Assessment Coordinator to establish a
programmatic assessment system.
HUM: Humanities (all)
In the Fall of 2009, we undertook fairly comprehensive review of the coordination of our teaching of Gen Ed
courses, especially HUM 124, HUM 226 and HUM 228. This led to a number of improvements, noted below. As
part of our ongoing discussions, the HUM section met again in the Fall of 2010 to revise our assessment
assignments for all of our Gen Ed Courses (HUM 124, 226, 228, and 300W). As a result of this, we clarified the
need for our students in their assessment essays to address themes of broad human significance in an
integrated manner across the course. It was decided in most cases to ask students to make reference to two or
more works studied, but not necessarily to require them to draw these from different sequential or thematic
units of the course or from different artistic media. This is something that we are revisiting in light of the 201011 Gen Ed Assessment data, and in light of our general commitment to maintaining a proper distribution of the
fine arts in our interdisciplinary courses (roughly 50% literature, 25% visual arts and 25% music and/or another
relevant area such as philosophy/religion).
HUM 124: Humanities and the Search for Meaning
Taking into account the evidence of past experience, articulated by the veteran instructors, and addressing the
need to integrate the new instructors, we decided for HUM 124 to begin working more cohesively as a unit with
one main primary text, and anthology, Literature: The Human Experience (LHE), which has the virtue of being
organized around a thematic approach to the human life-span (Innocence and Experience / Conformity and
Rebellion / Love and Hate / The Presence of Death), while including an extensive variety of selections (in
multiple genres, including short stories, poetry, essays, and drama, plus a section on poetry and art) from which
instructors might choose in building a course. We had in the past found that the previously wide-open and less
coordinated approach to HUM 124 (with various instructors selecting their own materials) did not uniformly
ensure that students were being provided with the integrated approach to interdisciplinary arts and humanities
learning that we are interested in fostering in this introductory General Education offering. The move to this
unified textbook, supplemented and diversified by choices of each instructor (novels, stories, music, visual art,
etc.), has allowed us to make certain that all of the SLO‟s for the course are being met more consistently across
the board. These relate to identifying, criticizing, interpreting and evaluating aspects of human concern in an
integrated manner across the fields of literature, visual art, music, design and philosophy/religion. Most of the
28
learning outcomes, we found in our review of the data, were being met. But since many students tended to be
too narrow in their choice of “two works,” we are revising our assessment assignment in order better to ensure
that the “integration across the course” criterion in particular is adequately met and measured (more detail
below, re: HUM 228). The adoption of the LHE textbook has produced a greater sense of coherence within each
course while providing the backbone for our students‟ broader exploration of interdisciplinary humanities. It has
also led to greater coordination among the HUM 124 instructors, who are now better able to engage in dialogue
about the course material fluidly and on a continual basis, sharing experiences and pedagogical strategies for
the purpose of ensuring consistent student learning. Finally, since our Gen Ed students are taking HUM 124 as
part of a series to fulfill Gen Ed Element 3 A/B requirements, this change has ensured that students from
different sections of HUM 124 taken with different instructors have had a relatively similar experience and
preparation for HUM 226 and HUM 228.
HUM 228: The Search for Meaning: The Modern World
In our consideration of the Gen Ed Assessment data for HUM 228, it was determined that while most students
were making progress in the areas of content comprehension and contextual analysis (social and historical
understanding), many students needed additional help with written expression and formal analysis. Accordingly,
when this course was offered in the Fall of 2011, greater attention was paid to these aspects in both lecture and
in the grading of essays. Moreover, while the initial data report (Fall 2010) indicated that many students were
„integrating material across the course,‟ upon reflection and re-examination it was determined that (as with
HUM 124 and 300W), while the “two or more works” criterion was met (the basis for this assessment), too many
students were actually relying on works taken from one aspect or unit of the course, which is usually divided
into 4 chronological and/or thematic sections. Accordingly, we are revising our assessment assignment (essay
question on final exam) in order to demand that students be more inclusive and reaching in their effort at
integration. In relation to this, we are concentrating more explicitly upon demonstrating continuities and
connections among the different time periods and cultures examined in the course in order that students have a
model for this kind of analysis when they are asked to perform it as part of their final integrative essay (the
assessment assignment). The new assessment assignments for all Gen Ed courses (HUM 124, 226, 228 and
300W) will require students to make significant reference to at least two works from different thematic or
chronological units of the course and/or different media and art forms. We feel that this change, to be
implemented in all courses during the 2012-13 GE Assessment year, will result in greater assurance of learning
with respect to “integration across the course,” especially, while supporting the other SLO‟s as well.
MUH: Music Appreciation (sample courses)
The results show over half of students scoring in the competent or above categories. More students appear to
be scoring in the “Accomplished” category, especially in the area of contextual analysis. Students are
demonstrating an understanding of the style periods and culture. In preparation for this writing assignment,
students had a session led by the music librarian about finding appropriate sources for writing about music. The
prompt for the assignment was well-defined. That instruction and an improvement in the prompt has
reinforced higher scoring on the essays. We will definitely continue with the same type of instruction about
library resources in music.
PHE 200: Dance and Culture
I continually hone the directions for the PHE 200 project to more closely align with the General Education
Assessment Protocol. I have had to change the order of the class to give the students more time to absorb and
reflect on the material they will use for the project. I have also found that they need more interaction in class
29
coming up with their theme and fully developing their argument for the paper. Giving the students a scoring
guide and examples of past papers has helped improve the quality of their work.
PHI 110: Beginning Philosophy
Faculty made changes to PHI 110 in the Fall of 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The
data indicated that the areas of Comprehension, Clarity of Expression, and Integration were most in need of
effort in terms of improving student learning. In response to the data concerning Comprehension, instructors
stress the use of definitions of the appropriate philosophical terms in their presentation of the material and on
assignments and exams. In response to the data concerning Clarity of Expression, instructors inform students of
the many services provided by the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity and direct students struggling with Clarity
of Expression to make an appointment with a Noel Consultant. In response to the data concerning Integration,
instructors make greater use of activities that require students to apply the theoretical material to their personal
and public lives, e.g., traditional philosophical thought experiments, current events, and other forms of popular
culture. Instructors also make increased use of course Blackboard sites.
PHI 371: Symbolic Logic
Faculty made changes to PHI 371 in Fall 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The data
indicated that the areas of Terminology, Execution, Operations, and Integration required the most effort in
terms of improving student learning. Based on the assessment instrument that he designed as a result of the
previous assessment cycle, the current instructor of PHI 371 is able to refine the quality and the quantity of the
questions on the final exam in order to focus in the course on the areas that will best promote student learning
as indicated by the General Education Scoring Rubric for Quantitative Courses.
REL 301: World Religions
Faculty made changes to REL 301 in the Fall of 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The
data indicated that the areas of Methods and Integration required the most effort in terms of improving student
learning, although the results showed a marked improvement in these areas from the last assessment cycle. In
response to the data concerning Methods, faculty provide more assignments and activities giving students the
opportunity to engage in dialogue with each other about different religions, e.g., in small groups in class or for
extra credit through the use of Campus Blogs on specific religions on the course Blackboard site. In response to
the data concerning Integration, faculty provide additional opportunities for students to engage with individuals
of different faiths, e.g., having students interview and participate in dialogue with somebody from a different
faith and write a reflection paper on their thoughts before, during, and after the interview/dialogue.
THE 100: Introduction to Theatre
Comparing the figures from May of 2010, we were very pleased with the results of Spring 2011. We saw a huge
increase in students who scored a 3 (Competent) in all four areas assessed. Particularly encouraging was in
increase in the area of Comprehension which went up from 5% in 2010 to 37% this spring. Students were much
better about using terminology they had learned in class and using that terminology correctly! This was one of
the areas that we had singled out for improvement and it appears that we were successful. In May 2010,
students who scored a 1 (Beginning) ranged from a low of 7% to a high of 28%. Spring 2011 saw those numbers
shrink to a low of 8% to a high of only 14% which is much more in line with our norms. Students scoring a 2
(Developing) in 2010 ranged from a low of 50% to a high of 67%. 2011 scores were a more balanced 38% to
45%.
30
We were very pleased to see the improvement and more even distribution of percentages this spring. Another
encouraging observation was made by the faculty. Many more students demonstrated the ability to separate
their “like or dislike” of the script and/or subject matter from the “quality” of the production teams work. This
level of critical thinking is just exactly what we wish the students to come away with.
In summary, the theatre faculty was pleased with the results of the assessment and with the plans formed to
improve student’s achievement of educational goals.
Faculty members met and discussed the positive outcomes suggested by this assessment, which they attributed
to changes they made in instruction as a result of last year’s assessment. They discussed the need to continue
these instructional approaches. Specifically, more attention should be given to explaining the prompt and the
importance of including all the information that the prompt requires.
BLOCK IV &VII (ns): NATURAL SCIENCES
ANT 201: Introduction to Physical Anthropology
Three points should be considered when reviewing the results. First, compared with the two previous
assessments in 2009, I have included more objective questions, especially for assessing the applying scientific
principles to make reasonable conclusions criterion.
Secondly, the class demography has changed significantly. In Fall 2009, 201 had two different-sized sections
(twenty-two and seven students); in Spring 2011 the three ANT 201 sections had roughly nineteen students
each. Also, whereas most of Fall2009’snonmajors taking ANT 201 were criminal justice majors, the non-majors
taking ANT 201 in Spring 2011 were mostly Animal Studies, Psychology, and History majors.
Finally, we changed the course meeting schedule for ANT 201. In Fall 2009, we dedicated a third meeting
session for the class, a dedicated 50-minute lab session. Since that semester, we reverted to two meeting days
per week, with extra time on each day. We now have little difficulty providing the needed time for labs,
application-oriented activities, and lectures. The course now routinely fills. In recent semesters, we have had
some sections in which six students over the maximum have signed up for the class.
BIO 121: Biology for Majors
This is a course that is required of all our majors. Based on the Gen Ed Assessment we conducted in Spring 2011
and prior semesters, we found that our students displayed a competent level of understanding in all the
assessment criteria. However, there were also some deficiencies, in the understanding of the methods,
explaining of major concepts of biology, and most significantly in the application aspects. The faculty felt they
were trying to convey too much information in the class, and this may perhaps be overwhelming the students.
Therefore, during multiple weekend retreats a decision was made and a plan devised to split this class into a two
semester sequence. These new courses are now BIO 111 (cellular and molecular Biology) and BIO 112 (Ecology
and Evolution). These courses will rely heavily on critical and creative thinking skills. The lectures and labs have
been completely redesigned, to promote active learning by the students. Faculty in these courses are also going
to experiment by moving away from the traditional lecture format, to more of a studio based teaching. We
believe that these changes will help the students grasp methods and concepts in Biology, and help them apply
their understanding of biological principles to make valid conclusions.
BIO 100: Introduction to Biology
31
This is a course that fulfils Block IV, and hence is required of all students across campus. Based on the Gen Ed
Assessments conducted in Spring 2011 and prior semesters, we found that close to 50% of the students in this
course exhibited a beginning level, with respect to the following criteria:
a) Application of Scientific Principles to make conclusions
b) Integration
Hence the faculty in these courses decided to take a closer look at the labs and how they integrated with the
lecture in an attempt to improve on these two criteria. Labs are perhaps the best way for students to apply
their knowledge of Biology and help them understand by actually doing science. As of Fall 2011, this course has
completely redesigned labs to make it more hands-on for the students. In addition, a new textbook was also
adopted in this course. Further, the lecture syllabus was standardized to coordinate with the labs. We believe
that with these changes the student learning outcomes will improve significantly.
BIO 171: Human Anatomy
This course satisfies Gen Ed Block VII (NS). Based on the Gen Ed Assessment conducted in Spring 2011, we
found that overall the students exhibited a “Competent” level of understanding in all criteria, two criteria were
cause for concern, they were:
a) Application of scientific principles to address issues of importance
b) Integration
These results helped faculty of these courses to take a closer look at their course. As a result most of the
content is now made available on Blackboard. Pictures of all Anatomical structures (bones) are available to
students 24/7 so that students can review the material before and after class. Lectures have been revamped to
help students relate the material to everyday life.
AST: Astronomy (sample)
The department is currently discussing the possibility of adding a laboratory component to some of the courses
and applies to have the course included in Element 4B in the new GE program. While we feel this could be
done, we are still in the very preliminary stages of this discussion. Resources for designing new courses are
limited. The new laboratory component could help us improve especially students understanding of the
methods used in astronomy and science more generally and would also give us more opportunity to work with
students one-on-one to improve their ability to apply the course material to real problems.
We are also in the process of improving our teaching methods. The department as a whole has made a strong
movement toward using clicker technology to make the classroom a much more active-learning environment.
We have also moved into a new technology-rich building with classrooms designed for more active pedagogical
techniques. All of this makes us expect these results will continue to improve.
We had hoped that requiring students to take MAT 105 or higher, would help better prepare students for
coursework.
The department is going to take a look at what we can do to:
 Improve the laboratory activities themselves, perhaps including a lab session that explicitly addresses
scientific method.
 Find ways to create more connections between the laboratory activities and the lecture portion of class.
CHE: Chemistry (sample)
A review of the questions reveals that there is ambiguity with some of the questions that could cause problems,
but most of the questions simply are relatively challenging and thus should not make up such a large proportion
32
of the questions for a given criterion. The assessment instrument will be revised to provide a more reasonable
range of difficulty before the next data collection event. Although the assessment instrument clearly needs
revising, we also will continue to make improvements to the lecture lab coordination to address ongoing issues
with application of the course material and integration across the course. We will continue to pursue better lab‐
lecture connections and monitor the effect in the next data cycle.
GEO 210: Introduction to Physical Geography
Faculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any
concerns about assessment data for this course. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the
department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our
2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no
changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course.
GLY: Geology (sample)
Faculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any
concerns about assessment data for this the lower level courses. Assessment data for this course were later
reviewed by the department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data
reported in our 2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee
deemed that no changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course. Faculty debated whether to
create new assessment items for our upper-division geology courses or to turn our upper-division courses into
lower-division courses. Faculty agreed that our 300-level Geology courses needed to be turned into lowerdivision courses and handed this matter over to the department curriculum committee. The department
curriculum committee will submit paperwork for these items to the college in Fall 2012. Faculty agreed that GLY
302 does not fill a niche in the new general education curriculum and it will no longer be part of gen ed.
PHY: Physics (sample)
The PHY 101 course has changed substantially over the last two years and new laboratory activities are being
developed and implemented. While we do this we are informing the decisions about pedagogy with this
deficiency in the application area in mind. We also have new faculty members who have just started teaching
the course. We are also reviewing the assessment exam to make sure it is still an appropriate tool to use in the
course. Different material is sometimes covered in this course and we want to make the assessment either
consistent with the content taught or independent of that material. We are also reviewing the assessment
exam to make sure it is still an appropriate tool to use in the course. Different material is sometimes covered in
this course and we want to make the assessment either consistent with the content taught or independent of
that material. By next assessment we will likely have a very different set of questions on the exam. The
assessment exam for PHY 102 is the same as for PHY 101. For the 200 level courses need to make sure we are
reviewing material from the first course in the sequence, so that students can more clearly make the connection
between the concepts
The PHY 132 course will likely not remain in the new General Education Program as students will have taken PHY
131 which is a prerequisite for PHY 132. PHY 131 already satisfies the new Element 4B. Students will not need
credit from this course to satisfy a General Education requirement.
BLOCK V &VII (sbs): HISTORY & SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
33
AFA 202: The African-American Experience
Faculty studied the assessment data from AFA 201/202 in Spring 2009 and 2010. In comparing the data and
evaluating areas of strengths and weaknesses as provided by the data, faculty made changes to the course in
Fall 2010 and subsequent semesters. Student learning outcomes were revaluated and modified to more
accurately target and measure learning. In addition to proven instructional strategies, such group work and
collaboration among class members, classroom simulations and role-playing, students were encouraged to
attend outside events and interact with speakers as a way to broaden their viewpoints and encourage outside
research on topics of interest. Instructors provided greater guidance as students initiated and completed work
on the major class writing assignment. In order to provide further clarity on the subject and help resolve any
research issues students may be experiencing, one-on-one-conferences were required of all students after
abstracts and paper proposals were submitted to the instructor. All students were also advised to either visit the
Writing Center or schedule a follow-up conference with the instructor to facilitate proper use of textual
evidence, primary and secondary source documentation and formatting as well as clarity of expression.
ANS 200: Animal Studies
This is the first time I’ve taught the course, and I am the only instructor. I initially thought I could provide a
“Methods” assessment, but the course is so interdisciplinary that there is no one method that can easily be
assessed, and different students applied different approaches. The competence assessment is based on quizzes
(usually multiple-choice) and is used to determine if students read the material. One student continued to do
well on the quizzes while frequently reiterating to me that she had not done the readings, so I plan to increase
the number of fill-in-the-blanks in the quizzes. I was in general pleased with the essay answers (assessing
application); much of the problem with answers seemed to be ignoring relevant material or not writing clearly
or well. The book review required the students to read two books from the Reaktion Press ANIMAL series, each
of which is about a different animal, and to compare and contrast the two books (e.g., similarities and
differences in their emphases, attitudes, etc.) and to include relevant course material. Most students did the
former effectively, fewer did the latter at all. I will need to revise the instructions to make clearer that students
need to integrate material from the course into their book review.
APP 200: Introduction to Appalachia
The assessment instrument shows that future attention may be given to describing more concretely the
methods used in the various disciplines used in Appalachian Studies. The instructors also discussed the
possibility of making some adjustments to the course to provide greater consistency in assignments. One option
might be to require specific items (beyond a required text book, if any) for reading rather than allowing students
to select, read, and review books/documents of their own choosing. We might also combine an essay with a
more programmatic analysis that would specifically ask students to comment on a document’s content,
argument, and methodology. The short essay to follow would ask students to Integrate that document into
other approaches to the subject they have studied in class. That way, students would devote specific attention
to each of the categories in the assessment rubric.
ANT 200: Anthropology of Human Society
In early spring 2011, I called an ANT 200 meeting to review the new draft assessment questions that I wrote to
match the new SLOs. This was actually the very first time all ANT 200 instructors were in the same room at the
same time. This was a very productive meeting for many reasons; we not only vetted the assessment questions
(with many subsequent tweaks) but we also shared various ideas on books and content, as well as straightened
out a few misunderstandings. This was great – quite time-consuming, but great – and I wish I had done it
34
sooner! I share the raw data with the assessment committee in large part to demonstrate the wide range in
performance among the sections. Although I have not tried to do any kind of fancy analysis, a quick look
indicates that in some instances it is true that KC’s (my) students scored higher, but certainly not in all. Thus, I
believe the argument (in this case) is not demonstrated that outcome is determined by employment status (full
vs. part-time instruction). Rather, I believe this wide range points to an enormous amount of noise in these data,
revealing what we all know: assessment is far from an exact science. Nevertheless, since I’ve now completed
these assessments a time or two, I do now believe the SLO and assessment questions align much better than
they did in previous assessments. As well, in my view, previous assessment questions were far too easy, and the
current outcomes may be a more accurate reflection of learning. As such, I believe that only now am I poised to
actually utilize these data in the way they were intended – to improve student learning.
HIS: History (Sample)
The department determined that while the faculty focused heavily on developing students’ written and verbal
communication skills, a key reason students were receiving lower than desired and expected scores in the base
level skill of comprehension was that the faculty assumed that their students came in knowing how to read – in
particular how to read for essential information/argument. Realizing this was a false assumption, faculty made
improvement of students’ reading skills a key general education course objective. To achieve this objective,
they have adopted such approaches as reading work sheets, reading expectation guides (what issues/questions
students should be able to address after completing their reading assignment) and even adopting text books
which guide students in identifying essential information and making them use what they have read to work
through exercises which move them from the lower order skill of comprehension to the higher order skill of
interpretation and analysis.
ANT 120: Cultural Anthropology
The results of this assessment will be shared with Anthropology 120 instructors. In addition, the Fall 2011
Anthropology 120 workshop will include a detailed discussion of the process and outcomes of the assessment.
During that workshop, we will discuss areas for improvement in the delivery of the Anthropology 120 course and
prioritize our goals. Course Textbook. Throughout the assessment development dialogue, a recurring issue was
the course textbooks. The 2009 SLOs were developed to align with a textbook by Conrad Kottak, “Cultural
Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity.” However, multiple textbooks were in use by anthropology faculty
and the instructors. Those who were not using Kottak felt that the SLOs did not align with their course material
as closely as the instructors who used the Kottak text. After discussion and consultation with Department Chair,
the anthropology team decided to adopt the Kottak text as the common, consistent textbook for Anthropology
120 beginning in the Summer of 2011. While this will require adjustment for some instructors, this alignment will
ensure that the course reflects the SLOs as the basis for student learning in the course. Course Supplemental
Materials. The Anthropology 120 course has witnessed a number of leadership changes over the past 10 years.
With a new full-time, tenure-track cultural anthropologist, the program has secured supplemental materials such
as video to complement the Anthropology 120 course. Especially with regards to complex and controversial topics
such as race and racism, these supplemental materials support the delivery of content directly related to the SLOs.
The integration of these materials will likely increase the level of learning in the areas of comprehension and
integration specifically. Assessment Process. To maintain an institutional record of the General Education
assessment process, here I describe in detail the assessment process for the Spring of 2011. Throughout the Fall
of 2010, I worked with Anthropology 120 instructors to develop a set of 20 assessment questions. Using the 2009
SLOs and the general education assessment rubric for Block V (comprehension, analysis, applications, methods,
and integration), five thematic question areas were developed:
1. Explain how, where, why, and with whom cultural anthropologists work. (METHODS, Questions 1-4)
35
2. Articulate cultural anthropology's perspective on culture, race, ethnicity, and cultural relativism.
(COMPREHENSION, Questions 6-9)
3. Discuss cross-cultural understandings and/or practices of language, marriage, kinship, family, gender, race,
making a living, religion, and art. (ANALYSIS, Questions 10-13)
4. Understand the dynamic and integrated relationship among humans, culture, and the environment.
(INTEGRATION, Questions 5, 14-16)
5. See the broad impacts of colonialism and the modern world system on the world today. (APPLICATION,
Questions 17-20)
The Anthropology 120 team work shopped the 20 assessment questions throughout the Fall 2010 and Spring
2011, beginning with a workshop in the Fall. The process raised a number of important questions that we
addressed with regards to the focus and goals of the Anthropology 120 course. By the end of the academic year,
the Anthropology 120 was in agreement that the introduction of a consistent textbook would improve student
learning.
ECO: Economics (Sample)
Overall, the assessment results suggest that students are making satisfactory progress in achieving the goals of
general education in ECO 120 in both 2009 and 2010. The majority of students in ECO 120 are upper division
students in education. The percentage of students rated as competent in each area may be higher than would
be expected in a lower division economics course more heavily populated with lower division students. As
might be expected, the majority of students were rated as competent for the knowledge/comprehension and
methods criteria in both years. Both simply measure student ability to recognize economic concepts and the
methods used in economic theory. The decrease in the percentage of students rated as competent in
knowledge/comprehension and methods decreased slightly from 2009 to 2010. A lower percentage of students
were rated as competent in application in both 2009 and in 2010, which measures student ability to engage in
one form of critical thinking. Since application is more challenging than knowledge of concepts and methods,
this result is expected. Again, the percentage of students rated as competent decreased from 2009 to 2010. The
percentage of students rated as competent in integration is higher than the percentage rated as competent in
application in both 2009 and 2010. This result is surprising and may suggest that the integration questions are
too easy. Again, the percentage of students rated as competent decreased from 2009 to 2010. In each area the
percentage of students rated as competent decreased from 2009 to 2010. This probably reflects instructor
differences in teaching practices and the amount of time devoted to knowledge of topics measured on the
assessment questions. The instructors assigned to ECO 120 will discuss these differences and/or edit the
assessment questions to minimize the impact of instructor differences.
We plan to use these results to improve our courses further. Each professor knows his or her own sections’
results and can alter their teaching if their students are not scoring as well on one particular criterion. While we
might not be able to combat our students’ lack of mathematical-reasoning ability, we are emphasizing the
tutoring possibilities for them. We have also been discussing the course objectives to make sure we cover what
we feel the course should cover.
One issue with this assessment is the nature of the assessment tool. By having several professors teach
different sections of the same course, the criterion being assessed might change. For example, what is
integration in one section might be application in another section that covered the connection between the
topics. Also, the reading comprehension skills of the students seemed to play a factor. If an assessment
question was worded in a style the students had seen before, they tended to score better, even if the topic
being assessed was new. Consequently, it seemed that students tended to score better on questions written
primarily by their own professors.
36
The percentages of students being rated as competent or better were roughly 56 percent in methods, 57
percent in comprehension, 47 percent in application and analysis, and 34 percent in integration. Since
application and integration are higher order critical thinking skills, the assessment results are consistent with
expectations. Over time, the scores on all four criteria have generally risen. From Fall, 2006, through Fall, 2007,
to Fall, 2009, the percentages of competent or better students for all four criteria rose (with the lone exception
of the percentage judged competent or better at application and analysis between 2006 and 2007). [The
percentages for Fall, 2008, were much higher than the others. That year seems to be an exception, perhaps due
to some error in assembling the data or because the professors that year nearly coincided with the committee
which wrote the assessment questions. It has been noted that students seem to score better when the phrasing
matches other course assessments.] Omitting 2008, Fall, 2010, shows improvement over 2006, 2007, and 2009
for comprehension and application. Methods shows a marked increase (almost 10 percentage points), probably
as a result of the “closing the loop” from the 2009 assessment cycle. Methods were emphasized more as a
result of the previous year. Beginning in 2008 or 2009, an effort was made to demonstrate how the course is
relatively cohesive, and so there has been increase in integration scores since. This is evidence that “closing the
loop” from previous assessment cycles has been maintained.
We plan to use these results to improve our courses further. Each professor knows his or her own sections’
results and can alter their teaching if their students are not scoring as well on one particular criterion. While we
might not be able to combat our students’ lack of mathematical-reasoning ability, we are emphasizing the
tutoring possibilities for them. We hope this will see an increase in comprehension.
GEO 100: Regions and Nations of the World
Faculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any
concerns about assessment data for this course. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the
department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our
2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no
changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course.
GEO 220: Human Geography
Faculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any
concerns about assessment data for this course. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the
department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our
2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no
changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course.
POL: Political Science (sample)
Faculty will meet during the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data/results. At that meeting the
faculty will discuss a variety of considerations regarding the assessment instrument including the nature of the
instrument (multiple choice v. alternatives), the difficulty of the items on the instrument, the extent to which
the assessment items align with stated course outcomes, student performance across the criteria/objectives,
and possible pedagogical changes. It is hard to be certain what accounts for the declining scores in 2011. The
assessment instrument and the instructions didn’t change, so that factor can be ruled out. It may be an issue
related to specific sections. This is an issue I will explore more generally in a future meeting with the POL 100
faculty. Section 26527 was taught by me (Barracca). This section was a half-semester course that began after
Spring Break. This type of course tends to be populated with a high percentage of students that dropped a fullsemester course that they were failing. Consequently, this section likely attracted students that were struggling
37
academically to begin with. Another approach is to look at the particular questions students did poorly on. The
data indicate that students struggled most with the questions on social contract theory and Marxism. It might be
fruitful to have the faculty discuss ways of improving the teaching of these concepts. Finally, it is possible that
the change in 2011 may just be a result of sampling. Further assessments are needed to determine this with
greater confidence. 4. Strategy for Improving As the assessment coordinator for the course, I plan to address
these issues in the following ways: Discuss with instructors ways that we might better teach the concepts of
social contract theory and Marxism. Since there has been considerable turnover in the faculty teaching POL 100
since the assessment instrument was first developed, we will have the current faculty review the concepts on
the assessment to evaluate whether the terms are still appropriate or the best ones we could use.
Students will be more strongly encouraged, earlier in the course, to acquire the basic knowledge and
understanding they need for subsequent analysis and synthesis. We will continue to insist of the need for
acquisition of knowledge, especially during the learning phase, because deliberation cannot be meaningful
without the background knowledge. Study groups have been found helpful in addressing this need in the past,
and will been couraged more forcefully in the future.
PSY 200/280: Introduction to Psychology/ Life-Span Development
The assessment coordinator for the department of Psychology held a retreat for all instructors to discuss
assessment data. We discussed several strategies to help students learn. One was to focus on less material.
The field of psychology is large and diverse and introductory textbooks are getting larger and more complex
every year. We discussed lesson plans that would focus on the most important material, and give students
practice in thinking critically about that material using exercises, team work, videos, and homework
assignments. We agreed to test more often, using low-stake testing, such as mini-quizzes, as this has been
shown to increase learning. One faculty team developed critical thinking exercises using popular media reports
of psychological research. They presented their work at a University-wide conference focused on critical
thinking. Over the summer we intend to revise the current handbook for part-time faculty to incorporate more
information on critical thinking strategies in the classroom, but we also want to ensure that full time faculty
receive this portion of the handbook.
SOC 131: Introduction to Sociology
The following specific actions were reported by Sociology 131 sociology faculty as techniques used to improve
student learning based on earlier assessment findings. Responses are organized along the four General Education
components:1) Comprehension, 2) Application and Analysis, 3) Methods, and 4) Integration.
Comprehension:
 New course materials with electronic flashcards emphasizing key concepts and terms for each chapter.
 Practice quizzes based on key concepts, resulting in improved student scores over past semesters.
 More quizzes (online and in class) that focus attention on specific concepts and topics.
Application and Analysis:
 The writing of reflective essays based on key terms and concepts from each chapter. Class presentations on
these essays, with demonstrable evidence of application of sociological terms in both understanding of
everyday life and of larger institutional structures.
 The analysis of actual data from the United States Census and the CIA Factbook on income, comparative
international measures of quality of life (GDP, infant mortality).
 The use of movies as “case studies” to demonstrate examples of sociological concepts (such as primary
socialization and bureaucracy)in conjunction with written analyses as class assignments.
38



Concept and theory application questions are included on all exams.
The use of short research articles that relate to specific sections of material, with class discussions based on
research article in class.
Research article essay questions are included on exams.
Methods:
 The use of secondary data which allows students to learn how to construct tables using simple descriptive
statistics (i.e. percentages, measures of central tendency) and cross tabulations.
 The use of an interactive class assignments where students first complete a web- based survey in real time
and then analyze the data using simple descriptive statistics for comparison.
Integration:
 The use of data to assess the explanatory power of theories (e.g. cross comparisons of country
characteristics such as life expectancy, GDP, and fertility rates to assess the explanatory power of
dependency and modernization theories).
 As the semester progresses, course lectures are designed to integrate previous concepts/topics in the
class. Exam application questions (all exams throughout the semester) require integration of material
throughout the course.
 Theory, simple data analysis exercises, and methods are integrated into a series of short class assignments
timed to coincide with coverage of class topics.
SOC 235: Social Problems
The following specific actions were reported by Sociology 235 sociology faculty as techniques used to improve
student learning based on earlier assessment findings. Responses are organized along the four General Education
components:1) Comprehension, 2) Application and Analysis, 3) Methods, and 4) Integration.
Comprehension:
 Assignments are incorporated that have students summarize original research and chapters in the text.
Application and Analysis:
 Students in corporate sociological concepts from course materials so that they can apply these concepts to
a social problem they have chosen for their research paper.
Methods:
 Assignments focus on "what makes a quality source" which emphasizes methodological quality.
 Assignments focus on different approaches to data collection.
Integration:
 Assignments are designed to foster skills for integrating knowledge, data, methods, application, and analysis
while using sociological concepts and theories related to current social problems.
SWK 310: Social Welfare Policy History
This was the first time a social work class had been assessed as a general education course and the assessment
has been a learning process. Since two separate assignments and assessment tools were used, the findings
cannot be generalized. The same assignment and assessment rubric will be used during the next assessment of
SWK 310.
39
It appears that comprehension and methods are the strongest areas, which is to be expected of sophomore
level students. Application progress was higher than expected at almost 85% at competent level or above.
40
Appendix E
Changes to EKU’s General Education Program (Effective fall 2012)
NEW PROGRAM EFFECTIVE FALL 2012
Element 1:
IA: Written Communication I
IB: Written Communication II
IC: Oral Communication
3 hrs.
3 hrs.
3 hrs.
Element 2: Mathematics
3 hrs.
Element 3:
3A: Arts
3B: Humanities
or 3 A/B Integrated A&H
3 hrs.
3 hrs.
6 hrs.
Element 4: Natural Sciences
6hrs
Element 5:
5A: Historical Perspectives
5B: Social and Behavioral Sci.
3 hrs.
3 hrs.
Element 6: Diversity of Perspectives & Experiences
6 hrs.
TOTAL GE Program:
36 hrs.
41
Previous General Education Program at EKU (GE-06)
*Fall 2012 Assessment Data are based on this program
General Education Core (33 hours)
Block I. Communication (9 hours)
I-A and I-B
Written Communication (6 hours)
AND I-C
Oral Communication (3 hours)
Block II.Mathematics (3 hours)
Block III.
III-A
AND III-B
OR
III-C
Arts and Humanities (6 hours)
One arts course (3 hours)
One humanities course (3 hours)
Two humanities courses (6 hours)
Block IV.
IV-A
AND IV-B
Natural Sciences (6 hours)
One biological science laboratory course (3 hours)
One physical science laboratory course (3 hours)
Block V.
V-A
AND V-B
AND V-C
Social and Behavioral Sciences (9 hours)
One history course (3 hours)
One social and behavioral science course (3 hours)
One additional V-A or V-B course (3 hours)
University General Education (15 hours) EKU SPECIFIC
Block VI
Wellness (3 hours)
Block VII
Breadth of Knowledge (6 hours).
Two courses from two different areas: arts and humanities(ah), natural sciences(ns), quantitative
skills(qs), and social and behavioral sciences(sbs).
Block VIII
Depth of Knowledge (6 hours)
Six hours of coursework from:
1.
Coherent block of supporting courses for a specific degree program. (6 hours) (Note: Each
degree program will decide whether to specify supporting courses for this option.)
OR
2.
Second Language (American Sign or Foreign Language) (6 hours)
OR
3.
Two courses in the same theme (6 hours) (Note: Theme courses are designed by faculty,
and approved by the General Education Committee.)
42
Appendix F
EKU’s General Education Scoring Rubrics
General Education Scoring Guide for WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Revised June 2008*
Criteria
4-Accomplished
Exceeds Course Expectations
3-Competent
Meets Course Expectations
Precisely demonstrates recognition
of audience and sets relevant tone.
Engages an audience effectively.
Fairly and accurately synthesizes
sources and integrates relevant
information, with significant depth
and breadth.
Organization is clear and logical
(parts make sense together; no
contradictions). Organization is
creative and engaging.
Demonstrates recognition of
audience and sets relevant tone
most of the time.
Fairly and accurately synthesizes
sources and integrates relevant
information.
Writing is clear, accurate, and
precise virtually all of the time.
Elegant sentence structure; fluid
integration of terms.
Uses accurate, relevant, and precise
vocabulary virtually all of the time.
Writing is clear, accurate, and
precise most of the time.
Writing is clear and accurate
some of the time. May have
some awkward sentences.
Organization is not clear
and/or logical (parts do not
make sense together and/or
there are many
contradictions).
Writing is rarely clear and/or
accurate. May have many
awkward sentences.
Uses accurate and relevant
vocabulary most of the time.
Limited use of accurate and
relevant vocabulary.
Rarely uses accurate and/or
relevant vocabulary.
(GE Goal 1)
Nearly error free, accurate use of
punctuation, grammar,
capitalization, relevant citation
format, etc.
Accurately uses punctuation,
grammar, capitalization, relevant
citation format, etc. with minor
or minimal errors that do not
interfere with clarity.
Information
Literacy
(GE Goal 1)
Selects relevant, accurate,
appropriate, and significant
sources.
Selects relevant, accurate, and
appropriate sources.
Major and/or frequent errors
in use of punctuation,
grammar, capitalization,
relevant citation format, etc.
Errors sometimes interfere
with clarity.
Selects some relevant,
accurate, and appropriate
sources.
Major and/or frequent errors
in use of punctuation,
grammar, capitalization,
relevant citation format, etc.
Errors often interfere with
clarity.
Selects virtually no relevant,
accurate, and/or appropriate
sources.
Audience/Tone
(GE Goal 1,2)
Organization
Integration
(GE Goal 2,8)
Organization
Cohesion
(GE Goal 2,8)
Control of Written
Language
Sentence Structure/
Syntax (GE Goal 1)
Control of Written
Language
Word Choice/
Vocabulary (GE Goal 1)
Surface Features
Organization is clear and logical
(parts make sense together; no
contradictions)
2-Developing
Incomplete in Meeting Course
Expectations
Is inconsistent in recognition
of audience and setting of
relevant tone.
Synthesizes sources and
integrates relevant
information, but is not always
fair and/or accurate.
Organization is mostly clear
and logical (most parts make
sense together; may be some
contradictions).
1-Beginning
Inadequate in Meeting
Course Expectations
Fails to demonstrate
recognition of audience
and/or set relevant tone.
Does not synthesize sources
and/or integrate relevant
information.
43
EKU General Education Scoring Rubric for ORAL COMMUNICATION
Revised 2009
4-Accomplished
Exceeds Course Expectations
Structure
Content
Context
Clearly and strategically organized
introduction, main points, and
conclusion; unfolds logically. Skillful
use of transitions.
Integrates relevant, accurate, recent
information/research with significant
breadth, depth with significant
breadth, depth and creativity. Displays
sensitivity when discussing ethical
issues with perceptivity and insight.
Sources clearly and accurately cited
throughout presentation.
Exceeds expectation of the
presentation goals (informative,
persuasive, ceremonial, etc.). Offers
novel approach to the goals of the
presentation. Adheres to proper time
limits. Message suitable to occasion.
3-Competent
Meets Course Expectations
2- Developing
Incomplete in Meeting Course
Expectations
1- Beginning
Does Not Meet Course
Expectations
Clearly organized introduction,
main points, and conclusion;
unfolds logically. Skillful use of
transitions.
Somewhat organized
introduction, main points, and
conclusion; unfolds somewhat
logically but listener(s) must
put effort into following
speaker. Some use of
transitions.
Overall disorganization.
Difficult to follow logic. Poor or
no use of transitions.
Integrates some
information/research but may
at times be irrelevant at times
be irrelevant, inaccurate, or
outdated. Displays some
sensitivity when discussing
ethical issues. Sources cited in
some portions of presentation.
Does not integrate
information/research. Displays
little or no sensitivity. Displays
little or no sensitivity when
discussing ethical issues. No
sources cited.
Marginally meets expectation
of the presentation goals
(informative, persuasive,
ceremonial, etc.) Problems
adhering to proper time limits.
Message suitable to occasion.
Fails to meet expectation of
the presentation goals. Does
not adhere to time limits.
Message not suitable to
occasion.
Integrates relevant, accurate,
recent information/research
with sufficient breadth and
with sufficient breadth and
depth. Displays sensitivity
when discussing ethical issues.
Sources clearly and accurately
cited in some portions of
presentation.
Meets expectation of the
presentation goals
(informative, persuasive,
ceremonial, etc.) Adheres to
proper time limits. Message
suitable to occasion.
44
ORAL COMMUNICATION continued
CRITERIA
Audience Awareness
Oral Delivery
Nonverbal Delivery
tone volume pitch
tone, volume, pitch,
gestures, rate,
posture, eye contact,
facial expression,
vocal variety, fluency,
vocalized pauses
(ums, ahs, like, you
know, etc.)
Presentation Aids
4-Accomplished
Exceeds Course Expectations
Masterfully makes content
(language, examples, narratives,
data, statistics, etc.) relevant to the
audience. Develops strong rapport
with audience.
Language is not only free of serious
errors in grammar, pronunciation,
articulation, and word usage, but
language use is vivid, unusually
interesting,
Exceptional use of nonverbal cues to
emphasize, highlight and enhance
language and enhance language.
Absence of vocalized pauses.
Nonverbal cues do not distract
listeners from the presentation.
Speaker appears natural, sincere,
confident, and energetic. Speaker
does not read speech.
Presentation aids vividly and
memorably enhance, reinforce,
illustrate, and support presentation
but do not substitute for the speech.
Aids are well-designed, clear, and
skillfully incorporated. Speaker does
not read from the presentation aid.
3-Competent
Meets Course Expectations
2- Developing
Incomplete in Meeting Course
Expectations
1- Beginning
Does Not Meet Course
Expectations
Makes content (language,
examples, narratives, data,
statistics, etc.) relevant to the
audience. Develops rapport
with audience.
Occasionally makes content
(language, examples,
narratives, data, statistics, etc.)
relevant to the audience.
Develops some rapport with
audience.
Fails to make content
relevant to audience.
Develop little or no rapport
with audience.
Language is free of serious
errors in grammar,
pronunciation, articulation,
and word usage.
Language may contain some
errors in grammar,
pronunciation, articulation, and
word usage.
Language contains several
serious errors in grammar,
pronunciation, articulation,
and word usage.
Nonverbal cues are
appropriately used to
support the language Few
vocalized the language. Few
vocalized pauses. Nonverbal
cues do not distract listeners
from the presentation.
Speaker appears natural,
sincere, confident, and
energetic. Speaker does not
read speech.
Presentation aids enhance,
reinforce, illustrate, and
support presentation but do
not substitute for the speech.
Aids are well-designed, clear,
and skillfully incorporated.
Speaker does not read from
the presentation aid.
Nonverbal cues are used to
support the language, but are
sometimes incongruent or
sometimes incongruent or
distracting.
Nonverbal cues do not
support the language and
are distracting.
Presentation aids somewhat
support presentation. Speaker
sometimes reads from
presentation aid.
Presentation aids fail to
support presentation or are
poorly designed or
implemented. Aids distract
from presentation.
Speaker reads from
presentation aid.
45
General Education Scoring Guide for ARTS & HUMANITIES
Revised June 2008
Criteria
Comprehension
(GE Goal 6)
Clarity of
Expression
(GE Goal 2)
Formal/
Structural
Analysis
(GE Goal 2,6,7)
Contextual
Analysis
(GE Goal 2,6)
4-Accomplished
3-Competent
2-Developing
1-Beginning
Exceeds Course
Expectations
Meets Course
Expectations
Incomplete in Meeting
Course Expectations
Inadequate in
Meeting Course
Expectations
Demonstrates limited or
inexact comprehension of
significant concepts. (Not
always accurate)
Expresses ideas that are
intelligible, but effective
communication is impaired
by grammatical flaws (not
always clear). Displays
lapses in logic.
Fails to demonstrate
comprehension of
significant concepts.
(Not accurate)
Fails to formulate
grammatically correct
and/or intelligible
sentences (unclear).
Little/no logical line of
reasoning.
Fails to provide
relevant analysis of
stylistic features,
techniques, or
methods employed in
the work(s) or
provides inaccurate
analysis.
Fails to locate or
inaccurately locates
works and/or cultural
movements in relation
to relevant contexts.
Shows no awareness
of how these contexts
influence the work(s).
Demonstrates accurate,
clear, and precise
comprehension of
significant concepts.
Expresses ideas through
sentences that are
clearly formulated,
grammatically correct,
and stylistically
compelling. Displays a
logical line of reasoning.
Provides accurate,
relevant, and precise
analysis of stylistic
features, techniques, or
methods employed in
the work(s).
Demonstrates accurate
comprehension of
significant concepts.
Provides accurate and
relevant analysis of
stylistic features,
techniques, or methods
employed in the work(s).
Provides limited relevant
analysis of stylistic
features, techniques, or
methods employed in the
work(s). Not always
accurate.
Accurately and precisely
locates particular works
and/or cultural
movements in relation to
multiple relevant
contexts. Identifies and
elaborates on the
manner in which these
contexts influence the
work(s).
Accurately locates
particular works and/or
cultural movements in
relation to some relevant
contexts. Identifies the
manner in which these
contexts influence the
work(s).
Approximately locates
works and/or cultural
movements in relation to
some relevant contexts.
May have some
inaccuracies. Shows a
general awareness of how
the contexts influence the
work(s).
Expresses ideas through
sentences that are clearly
formulated, grammatically
correct, and stylistically
competent. May display
some lapses in logic.
N/A
46
ARTS & HUMANITIES Continued
Criteria
4-Accomplished
3-Competent
2-Developing
1-Beginning
Meets Course
Expectations
Incomplete in Meeting
Course Expectations
Inadequate in
Meeting Course
Expectations
Accurately, precisely,
and creatively applies
relevant methods,
models, and/or
perspectives for the
purpose of evaluating
work(s), addressing
issues, or solving
problems.
Demonstrates an
accurate and precise
understanding of
relevant methods used
to gather evidence to
support conclusions.
Accurately applies relevant
methods, models, and/or
perspectives for the
purpose of evaluating
work(s), addressing
issues, or solving
problems.
Applies with limited
success (not always
accurate) relevant
methods, models, and/or
perspectives for the
purpose of evaluating
work(s), addressing
issues, or solving
problems.
Demonstrates an
incomplete understanding
(not always accurate) of
relevant methods used to
gather evidence to support
conclusions. May not
always be accurate.
Accurately, deeply and
broadly integrates
relevant information and
significant concepts and
principles in a logical
manner.
Accurately integrates
relevant information and
significant concepts and
principles in a logical
manner.
Fails to apply or
inaccurately applies
relevant methods,
models, and/or
perspectives for the
purpose of evaluating
work(s), addressing
issues, or solving
problems.
Fails to demonstrate
an understanding or
demonstrates
inaccurate
understanding of
relevant methods used
to gather evidence to
support conclusions.
Fails to integrate or
inaccurately integrates
relevant information
and/or significant
concepts and
principles.
Exceeds Course
Expectations
Theoretical
Application
(GE Goal 2,6,7)
Methods
(GE Goal 7)
Integration
Across Course
(GE Goal 2, 8)
Demonstrates an accurate
understanding of relevant
methods used to gather
evidence to support
conclusions.
Accurately integrates
some relevant information
and significant concepts
and principles in a logical
manner.
N/A
47
General Education Scoring Guide for MATHEMATICS
Revised Summer 2008
4-Accomplished
3-Competent
Exceeds Course Expectations
Meets Course Expectations
2-Developing
1-Beginning
N/A
Criteria
Uses terminology and
notation appropriately in all
instances
Uses terminology and notation
appropriately in most instances
Incomplete in Meeting
Course Expectations
Incompletely comprehends
the major concepts of the
course
Uses some appropriate
terminology and notation
(GE Goal 2)
Execution of appropriate
strategies for solving
problems
Executes a creative or
sophisticated solution for
solving a problem
Executes an appropriate
strategy for solving each
problem
Sometimes selects an
inappropriate or inefficient
strategy
Often selects an
inappropriate or
inefficient strategy
(GE Goals 2 & 7)
Use of
mathematical/logical
operations
Uses mathematical/logical
operations appropriately in
all instances
Uses mathematical/logical
operations appropriately in
most instances
Uses some appropriate
mathematical/logical
operations
Often misuses, or fails to
use,
mathematical/logical
operations
Clearly and completely
articulates a sophisticated
interpretation of the data,
and/or makes sophisticated
inferences in the context of
the problem(s)
Fully integrates relevant
information, meaningful
concepts, and important
principles
Interprets data in the context
of the problem(s) and makes
appropriate inferences
Incompletely interprets data
and/or makes some
incomplete or inappropriate
inferences
Inappropriately
interprets data and/or
makes incorrect
inferences
Integrates most relevant
information, meaningful
concepts, and important
principles
Integrates some relevant
information, meaningful
concepts, and important
principles
Fails to integrate
relevant information,
meaningful concepts,
and important principles
Comprehension
N/A
(GE Goal 2)
Appropriate use of
terminology and notation
(GE Goal 2)
Interpretation of the
meaning of solutions in the
context of the problem(s)
(GE Goals 2 & 7)
Integration across course
(GE Goals 2 & 8)
Adequately comprehends the
major concepts of the course
Inadequate in Meeting
Course Expectations
Inadequately
comprehends the major
concepts of the course
Often misuses, or fails to
use, terminology and
notation
48
General Education Scoring Guide for NATURAL SCIENCES
Revised 2006
4-Accomplished
3-Competent
Exceeds Course Expectations
Meets Course Expectations
2-Developing
1-Beginning
N/A
Criteria
Demonstrate an
understanding of the
methods used to carry out
scientific inquiry
Incomplete in Meeting
Course Expectations
Demonstrates incomplete
understanding of the
methods used in science
Inadequate in Meeting
Course Expectations
Demonstrates
inadequate
understanding of the
methods used in science
Demonstrates superior
understanding of the
methods used in science
Demonstrates an
understanding of the methods
used in science
(GE Goal 7)
Explaining the major
concepts of the natural
sciences
Fully comprehends major
concepts and meaningful
relationships of science
Adequately comprehends the
major concepts of science
Incomplete comprehension
of the major concepts of
science
Inadequate
comprehension of the
major concepts of
science
(GE Goal 5)
Applying scientific
principles to make
reasonable and valid
conclusions
Consistently applies scientific
principles to make
reasonable and valid
conclusions
Most of the time applies
scientific principles to make
reasonable and valid
conclusions
Sometimes applies scientific
principles to make
reasonable and valid
conclusions
Does not apply scientific
principles to make
reasonable and valid
conclusions
(GE Goal 2 & 5)
Applying scientific
knowledge to address
issues of personal and
public importance
Consistently applies scientific
knowledge to address issues
of personal and public
importance
Most of the time applies
scientific knowledge to address
issues of personal and public
importance
Sometimes applies scientific
knowledge to address issues
of personal and public
importance
Does not apply scientific
knowledge to address
issues of personal and
public importance
Fully integrates relevant
information, meaningful
concepts, and important
principles
Integrates most relevant
information, meaningful
concepts, and important
principles
Integrates some relevant
information, meaningful
concepts, and important
principles
Fails to integrate
relevant information,
meaningful concepts,
and important principles
(GE Goal 2,5,8)
Integration across course
(GE Goal 2,5,8)
49
General Education Scoring Guide for HISTORY & SOCIAL SCIENCES
Revised 2006
4-Accomplished
3-Competent
Exceeds Course Expectations
Meets Course Expectations
2-Developing
1-Beginning
N/A
Criteria
Comprehension
GE Goals:
History 3
Uses relevant
concepts/theories in
different contexts, but in an
incomplete or superficial
manner
Asserts a position or
interpretation, but fails to
provide adequate
justification; Limited
identification of implications
and consequences
Does not use relevant
concepts/theories in
different contexts
Comprehends the important
concepts of the discipline as
well as subsidiary and
implicit aspects
Comprehends the important
concepts of the discipline
Uses relevant
concepts/theories
insightfully in different
contexts
Uses relevant
concepts/theories in different
contexts
Establishes a conclusive
position or interpretation
through the development of
a cogent line of reasoning;
Discusses implications and
consequences
Establishes a conclusive
position with some
justification; Identifies
implications and consequences
Demonstrates a superior
understanding of methods
used in the discipline
Demonstrates an
understanding of methods
used in the discipline
Demonstrates an incomplete
understanding of methods
used in the discipline
Fails to demonstrate
understanding of
methods used in the
discipline
Fully integrates relevant
information, appropriate
perspectives, and important
principles
Integrates most relevant
information, appropriate
perspectives, and important
principles
Integrates some relevant
information, appropriate
perspectives, and important
principles
Fails to integrate
relevant information,
appropriate
perspectives, and
important principles
SBS 2, 4
Interpretation and
Evaluation
GE Goals:
History: 7
Methods
GE Goals:
History 7
Inadequate in Meeting
Course Expectations
Comprehends few of the
important concepts of
the discipline
SBS 4
Application and Analysis
GE Goals:
History 2,3
Incomplete in Meeting
Course Expectations
Comprehends some of the
important concepts of the
discipline
Fails to establish any
recognizable conclusion
SBS 7
Integration
GE Goals:
History 2,3,8 SBS 2,4,8
50
Appendix G
Description of Assessment Instruments by GE Block
GE Block
IA & B: Written Communication
IC: Oral Communication
II: Mathematics
III: Arts & Humanities
IV: Natural Sciences
V: History & Social/Behavioral Sciences
Description of Assessment Instruments
End-of-term papers. Random sample from all sections evaluated by faculty teams
End-of-term video recordings of oral presentations: Random sample from all sections evaluated by faculty teams
End-of-term objective exam with calculations and interpretations: All students or random sample from all sections
(depending on course enrollment). Work scored by graduate students and/or faculty.
End-of-term papers/essays: All students or random sample from all sections. Work scored by faculty teams.
End-of-term tests including objective and subjective items: All students or random sample from all sections. Work
scored by machine (if multiple-choice) or faculty.
History: End-of-term essays: All students or random sample from all sections. Work scored by faculty teams.
Social science: End-of-term tests including objective and subjective items. All students or random sample from all
sections. Work scored by machine (if multiple choice) or faculty.
51