Los Angeles Valley College
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Cycle Report
Courses and Programs
Discipline: Psychology
Department: Psychology
Program/Course: Psychology 1, General Psychology
Semester/Year: Spring 2011
SLO Representative: Ali Ghassemi
Department Chair: Ron Mossler
Student Learning Outcome Assessed
Description of Assessment Method
a. Describe the assessment tool and how the
data was analyzed (e.g., student activity,
rubric elements, etc.). Attach rubric if
applicable.
b. Describe the sampling methodology (i.e., how
sampling was done, number of students and
faculty/staff involved out of the total)
c. Describe how inter-rater reliability was
achieved
Assessment Results
a. Describe the relevant findings according to
the criteria set by the assessment tool
Apply knowledge of developmental changes in physical, cognitive and
socioemotional processes across the lifespan to real life.
a. Three full-time instructors reviewed an assignment from the introductory class
and met to discuss and agree on the grading criteria. The instructors individually
assessed the assignment and then discussed the results.
b. The sample consisted of 28 assignments, 19 of which were graded (see below).
c. We calculated Inter-rater reliability among the 19 assignments.
Our SLO assessment was based on an applied assignment. Students had the choice to
construct a poster (the American Psychological Association has poster presentations) or a
“psychology in the media” project. Every student chose the poster project. The 100-point
assignment was to construct poster that fully explained an introductory topic in
psychology. Topics were approved by the instructor 8 weeks before posters were due.
The assignment was explained in detail on the syllabus and students were invited to ask
questions nearly every class session. Students were also invited to attend office hours for
further clarification. Moreover, dozens of poster samples (from previous semesters) are
on permanent display inside the classroom and in the hallway of the building in which
the class meets.
The grading criteria were agreed upon by both instructors and were based on grammar,
content, presentation, and the student’s ability to respond fully to the assignment.
Students were strongly encouraged to follow exemplary models and were given guidance
on presentation in the syllabus, during class, by email, and during office hours. Students
were also informed that the instructor would give feedback for content before it was
incorporated into a poster.
It was agreed that an A response (90/100) would have breadth of content, be free of
multiple spelling and grammatical errors, be clean and organized, aligned, have
appropriate graphics, and contain resources and references. An A response needed to
give the reader a clear indication that the student understood the information and could
give an informed “mini-lecture” on the subject.
It was agreed that a B response would have a moderate to severe flaw in graphics,
organization, or formatting OR have moderate flaw in content (including grammar and
spelling),
It was agreed that a C response would be topically accurate and contain moderate to
severe flaws in at least two of the following areas: content (including grammar and
spelling), graphics, organization, formatting OR show severe deficiency in content
(including grammar and spelling),
Overall, our SLO assessment for this class assignment resulted in a very high level of
agreement and reliability on each student’s assignment. On a 100-point scale, instructors
were within 9 points of each other in 18 out of 19 evaluations. One notable exception
produced a discrepancy of 19 points. The instructor with more experience (i.e., has
graded many from previous semesters) graded 14 of the 19 assignments lower than the
other, perhaps reflecting degradation in quality from previous semesters. There was very
high inter-rater reliability of .86.
One problem was determining what constituted proper formatting and alignment.
Presentations that were otherwise informative were sometimes unattractive.
Perhaps the most problematic issue was related to plagiarism. Raters found nine
instances of plagiarized information and therefore did not grade those assignments.
How Results were Used for
Course/Program Improvement
a. Describe how the results are going to be used
for the improvement of teaching, learning, or
institutional effectiveness based on the data
assessed.
b. Describe how results will be shared with
others in the discipline/area.
After reviewing the results, the faculty then discussed additional ways to help students
learn the desired outcome for the course. One idea that came up was the continued use
of the English 28 advisory and how better to encourage students to take appropriate
English courses prior to taking psychology classes; this would help students be more
successful with their textbook readings, their understanding and comprehension of the
material, and their assignments. English 101 would help students understand how to do
research that would elevate understanding of poster topics, but formal research
knowledge is not necessary.
We also believe that the inability to simply follow directions had a major effect on
grades. Many students were late to class, did not listen, did not read the syllabus, and/or
did not avail themselves of class discussions online and during instructor office hours. We
felt this lack of basic understanding permeated outcomes in general.
In addition, the raters do not believe that the plagiarized posters were an aberration,
though certainly it was unusual to have 25% on one assignment for one class. The
syllabus was quite explicit and the instructor had frequently reviewed guidelines of
plagiarism. We believe that academic dishonesy is an institutional problem that is not
fully addressed campus-wide. Without extensive district (monetary) or campus
(vigilance) participation, we are not sure how the problem of academic dishonesty can be
fully addressed. Plagiarism continues to be a topic of discussion at department meetings.