Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Queensborough Community College/CUNY
Department of Social Sciences
Individual Course Assessment Report
Date Submitted: 1/17/16
Course No./Title: PSYC 101/Introduction to Psychology
Course Description (from QCC Catalog):
Introduction to the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. Topics include origins of psychology,
research methods, biological bases of brain and mind, sensation-perception, sleep and states of
consciousness, learning-memory, development, cognition-intelligence, motivation-emotion, personality,
abnormal psychology-therapy, and social psychology. Research findings and principles related to everyday
life.
Course Learning Outcomes:
a. Analyze and evaluate research methods that make Psychology a science, including the advantages and
disadvantages of each research method, as well as how they are complementary.
b. Articulate and assess ethical views and their underlying premises with regards to both research and
therapy.
Pathways Learning Outcomes:
a. Gather, interpret, and assess information from a variety of sources and points of view.
b. Evaluate evidence and arguments critically or analytically.
c. Produce well-reasoned written or oral arguments using evidence to support conclusions.
Participants
Number of sections: 3 sections in total. [PSYC 101 H2 (58244), PSYC 101 H4B (58298) and PSYC 101
E5 (58232)]
Number of students assessed: 50 completed the assignment. The assignment for this assessment project
was added after the semester started and did not contribute a significant proportion to students final grade
hence the lower than normal participation rates.
Course Assessment Method:
Students were asked to read a brief research article by Reid and Novak (1975) entitled “Personal space:
An obtrusive measure study” (URL for Article Click Here). The 2-page article investigated the unwritten
norms about personal space that influence urinal use in male restrooms. Students were given unlimited
access to the research article via blackboard.
After reading the research article, students were then asked to answer 16 open ended questions relating to
the contents of the article (See Appendix A). The questions were developed around three categories of
assessment: content (5 questions), analytical skills (7 questions), and ethics (4 questions). Three individual
rubrics were used to assess each question category (See Appendix B-D).Both the analytical and ethics
rubrics contained sub-categories for assessment that were utilized in this project. Students were instructed
to answer content questions first, followed by the analytical questions and finally, the ethical questions.
1|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Students responses graded as either “competent” or “superior ", in the three major areas assessed via the
rubrics used in this project, were judged to have successfully completed the assignment
Course Assessment results:
Results show that overall and across all three course sections most students performed "Superior" (76%)
on the "Content" category questions with the remaining students scoring in the "Competent" (24%) range.
The overall mean response for all items in this category was M = 2.61 ( See tables 1a and 1b).
Performance on the sub-categories of the "Analytical" rubric were varied. Overall, students on average
scored highest (M= 2.61) on questions related to identifying and explaining the issue or problem [Analytical:
Issue]. However student performance on questions relating to presenting, organizing, and evaluating
sufficient and relevant evidence [Analytical: Evidence] was found to be the lowest (M=2.12) compared to
the other two analytical sub-categories. Overall, the greatest proportion of students were graded as
"developing" (48%) and "comptent" (44%) on the "Analytical" category questions (See tables 2a and 2b).
With regard to the ethical questions, student performance was highest on the ethical sub-category
"Awereness of Shareholders" (M = 3.27) and "Professional Awareness" (M = 2.91) however, performance
was lowest on the sub-catetories "Ethical Reasoning" (M =1.75) and "Ethical Decision Making" (M =
2.00). Overall, most students score in the "competent" (50%) and "developing" ( 34%) range on the ethical
questions (See tables 3a and 3b).
Taken together students performed best on the content questions (M=2.61) followed by the ethical
questions (M=2.45) but not as well on the analytical questions (M=2.41).
Table 1a. Mean "Content" Score for Individual Class Sections and all Classes Combined
H2 (N=24)
H4B (N=12)
E5 (N=14)
Overall (N=50)
Content
2.51
2.61
2.76
2.61
Table 1b. Perccentage of Graded Responses in each "Content" Rubric Category
H2 (N=24)
H4B (N=12)
E5 (N=14)
Overall (N=50)
1
insufficient
0%
0%
0%
0%
2
developing
0%
0%
0%
0%
3
competent
29%
8%
28%
24%
4
superior
71%
92%
72%
76%
2|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Table 2a. Mean "Analytical" Scores for Overall Analytical Categories and Sub-Categories as well as Individual Class
Sections
H2 (N=24)
H4B (N=12)
E5 (N=14)
Overall (N=50)
Analytical: Issue
2.51
2.61
2.76
2.61
Analytical: Evidence
2.04
1.92
2.43
2.12
Analytical:Conclusion
2.33
2.67
2.25
2.39
Analytical:Overall
2.33
2.43
2.53
2.41
Table 2b. Percentage of Graded Responses in each "Analytical" Rubric Category
DIMENSIONS
Issue:
Identify and explain the issue, problem, or question.
Evidence:
Present, organize, and evaluate sufficient and relevant
evidence.
Conclusion:
Reach an informed conclusion or solution.
Overall
4
Superior
3
Competent
2
Developing
1
Novice
0
Insufficient
8%
54%
32%
4%
2%
14%
34%
28%
20%
4%
22%
2%
34%
44%
32%
48%
10%
4%
2%
2%
Table 3a. Mean "Ethical" Scores for Overall Ethics Categories and Sub-Categories as well as Individual Class
H2 (N=22)
H4B (N=10)
E5 (N=12)
Overall (N=44)
Behavioral
Awareness
Professional
Awareness
Awareness of
Stakeholders
1.91
2.30
3.17
2.30
2.95
2.91
3.42
2.91
3.23
3.31
3.67
3.27
Ethical
Decision
Making
2.00
1.98
2.42
2.00
Ethical
Reasoning
Ethical:
Overall
1.73
1.74
1.83
1.75
2.36
2.08
2.90
2.45
Table 3b. Percentage of Graded Responses in each "Ethicics" Rubric Category
Behavioral Awareness
Professional Awareness
Awareness of Stakeholders
Ethical Reasoning
Ethical Decision Making
Overall
1
insufficient
25%
16%
18%
41%
40%
14%
2
developing
36%
16%
9%
44%
23%
34%
3
competent
23%
29%
0%
11%
30%
50%
4
superior
16%
39%
73%
4%
7%
2%
3|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Conclusions and Action Plan
Students showed greatest performance on the "content" portion of the assignment with 100% scoring
"competent" or "superior". Results also revealed that significant numbers of students performed below
passing in the remainging two areas of the assignment (i.e. Analytical and Ethical). On the "anayltical"
portion of the assignment 54% of the participants did not successfully completed the "analytical" portion of
the assignment. A closer look at the "analytic" component of the assignment revealed that while a large
number of students were able to demonstrate "competence/superiority" in identifying and explaining the
issue or problem", greater than 50% of the students were unable to demonstrate "competence" or
"superior" in presenting, organizing and evaluating sufficient and relevant evidence. Additionally, a greater
proportion of students (52%) scored below "competence" on the analytic factor "reaching informed
conclusions". These findings reveal a shortcoming in demonstrating achievement of the CUNY Pathways
learning outcome assessed by this assignment i.e. "evaluate evidence and arguments critically or
analytically". A separate analysis of student responses to question 10 reveal that while 50% of the students
correctly answered the question, the remaining 50% failed to answer the question at the passing level. This
finding leaves much needed room for improvement as it indicates a greater than expected number of
students struggle demonstrate an important course outcome related to analyzing and evaluating research
methods that make Psychology a science.
Futhermore, the results also show that 48% of the participants scored failed to successfully completed the
"ethics"portion of the assignment. This finding revealed that almost half of the students who participated in
the exercise were unable to articulate and assess ethical views and their underlying premises with regard
to both research and therapy, an important course learning outcome for PSYC 101.
Moving forward several modifications will be made to the assignment and other course factors in order to
ensure greater success in assessing the learning outcomes of the course. The first change would include
making the necessary adjustments to the course lectures in an attempt to address and reinforce the
importance of developing and maintaining profiency in these assessed skill areas. Secondly, I intend to
introduce and allow for more practice in these difficient areas by implementing similar, low-stakes
assignments geared toward increasing student practice in honing their analytical and ethical reasoning
skills. Another function of these low-stakes assignments is to better prepare students for a semester-long
high stakes assignment, similar to the assignment used in this assessment project. To further help
students develop their analytical and ethical skills, the assignment will be scaffolded into three segments
and carried out over the entire semester (i.e. content, analytical, and ethical). For each segment, students
will be given feedback on their writing and will be given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their work.
This slow paced approach will allow students to engagage in more critical reading, analysis and evaluation
of the information presented in the readings associated with the assignment. It will also provide students
with the option of seeking clarification from their instuctor if any amibiguity exists. Thirdly, refinements to the
wording used for some of the questions in the assessment will be undertaken to minimize and eliminate
any poorly worded questions. Finally, I would increase the points value of the contribution of this project to
student's final grade in the course to encourage students to take the assignment more seriously and to be
more engaged in the completion of the assignment. This change should address the problem of the low
participation rate and increase student participation in the assessment exercise.
4|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Appendix A
Description of Assignment
Please read the brief research article by Reid and Novak (1975) entitled “Personal space: An obtrusive measure study” and
answer a series of questions relating to the article's contents. Below is a list of questions you will be asked to answer:
Please asnwer all questions in the order in which they are presented. That is you mu first answer the content questions before
attempting to anaswer the analytical questions or the ethical questions.
Content Questions
1. What is the title of the article?
2. Who are the authors of this research article?
3. Identify the institutional affiliation of the authors.
4. Identify the name of the journal that published this article?
5. Identify the Year, Volume, Issue/number of the Article.
Analytic Reasoning Questions
6. What is the general topic that the article investigated?
7. What prior evidence does the author use to justify doing the research?
8. What are the author’s overall research questions or hypotheses? In other words, what did the author expect to find by
doing this research
9. Describe the characteristics of the people who were studied (i.e., number, age gender, ethnicity, special
characteristics).
10. Does this research fit one of the basic research methods we discussed (naturalistic observation, survey/questionnaire,
case study of single individual, experiment, correlational research? Which? Why do you think so?
11. Describe the statistical findings of the research study. What did the researchers find?
12. What conclusions did the research draw about their findings?
Ethical Questions
13. Identify any potential ethical problems with this study? Include a discussion of what make the problem unethical.
14. Who is at fault for the unethical issue(s) you identified in the study?
15. Using the APA ethical guidelines listed in chapter 1 of your text; identify any and all ethical principles that were violated
in this study.
16. If you were the researcher in this study what would you do differently to avoid any potential unethical issues with your
study?
https://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/Article.html
5|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Appendix B: Content Area Rubric
GENERAL RUBRIC FOR CONTENT AREAS
This scoring rubric applies to any authentic, content specific writing tasks/assignments in content areas such as
Mathematics, Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts, Technology, etc.
Content Area Rubric
Points
4
Superior
3
Competent
Descriptions
•
•
•
•
•
The student response addresses all aspects of the writing task/assignment
All directions are followed
Appropriate,accurate, and specific examples are cited and explained
Sound reasoning is employed
Use of the skills of evaluation, analysis, and synthesis is apparent
•
•
•
The student response addresses most aspects of the writing task/assignment
Most directions are followed
Appropriate examples are cited and explained, however, some inaccurate information is
included
Reasoning employed is on the inferential level
Use of the skills of synthesis and analysis is apparent
•
•
2
Developing
1
Insufficient
•
•
•
•
•
The student response addresses some aspects of the writing task/assignment
Some directions are followed
Some examples may be cited, may attempt to be explained, and inaccurate information is
included
Reasoning employed is on the concrete level
Use of literal skills is apparent
•
•
•
•
•
The student response addresses no aspect of the writing task/assignment
Few or no directions are followed
Examples, if cited, are inaccurate or inappropriate
There is little or no evidence of any reasoning employed
There is little or no evidence of any apparent skills
6|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Appendix C: Analytical Reasoning Rubric
RUBRIC FOR QCC EDUCATIONAL OUTCOME #2: USE ANALYTICAL REASONING TO IDENTIFY ISSUES OR
PROBLEMS AND EVALUATE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS
ANALYTICAL REASONING RUBRIC for Spring 2015
DIMENSIONS
Superior - 4
Competent - 3
Developing - 2
Novice - 1
Insufficient – 0
Partially
identifies and
explains the
issue, problem,
or question with
some
explanation
Partially
presents,
organizes, and
evaluates mostly
relevant
evidence
Minimally
identifies and
explains the
issue, problem, or
question without
explanation
Does not
identify or
explain the
issue, problem,
or question
Minimally
presents,
organizes, and
evaluates some
relevant evidence
Does not
present,
organize or
evaluate
sufficient
relevant
evidence
The conclusion
is unfocused or
minimally
supported by the
provided
evidence
The conclusion is
ambiguous,
illogical, or
unsupported by
the provided
evidence
The conclusion
is absent
Issue:
Identify and
explain the
issue, problem,
or question.
Clearly and
comprehensively
identifies and explains
the issue, problem, or
question
Evidence:
Present,
organize, and
evaluate
sufficient and
relevant
evidence.
Clearly and
comprehensively
presents, organizes, and
evaluates sufficient and
relevant evidence
Clearly and
sufficiently
identifies and
explains issue,
problem, or
question with
minor omissions
Clearly presents,
organizes, and
evaluates relevant
evidence with
minor omissions
Conclusion:
Reach an
informed
conclusion or
solution.
The conclusion is a clear,
well supported, and
logical statement that
reflects the complexity of
the argument or problem
The conclusion or
solution is
sufficiently
supported by the
provided evidence
1/22/15
7|Page
Psychology, PSYC 101
Assessment, Fall Semester, 2015
Appendix D: Ethical Issues Rubric
Ethical Issues Rubric: Comprehend ethical issues and be able to apply an ethical decision-making framework to business
decisions.
1
2
3
4
insufficient
Developing
competent
superior
Behavioral
Unaware that an
Identifies that an
Identifies ethical
Identifies all relevant
Awareness
ethics issue
ethical issue exists.
dimensions, but leaves
ethical dimensions.
exists.
out facts that are
ethically relevant.
Professional
Unaware that a
Identifies that a
Identifies professional
Identifies all relevant
Awareness
professional issue professional issue
aspects of the situation
professional factors.
exists.
exists.
but leaves out
professional relevant
factors.
Awareness of
Stakeholders
Ethical
Reasoning
Ethical
Decision
Making
Consideration of
only one
stakeholder (e.g.
oneself) relevant
to the ethical
decision.
Only legal
compliance or
selfish thinking
used to determine
and resolve
ethical issue(s).
Does not arrive at
an ethical
decision.
Identifies & considers a
few potential
stakeholders relevant
to the ethical decision.
Applies only one
ethical decision
rules/tests/approaches
in an effort to resolve
the ethics issue(s).
Arrives at a decision,
but lacks coherence
with problem,
interested parties,
and/or general
situation.
Identifies & considers
many or most potential
stakeholders to the
ethical decision but
leaves out some
significant stakeholders.
Applies only two ethical
decision
rules/tests/approaches in
an effort to resolve the
ethics issue(s).
Identifies & considers all
potential stakeholders
relevant to the ethical
decision.
Decision coheres
w/problem, interested
parties and/or general
situation
Arrives at an insightful
comprehensive decision
that coheres with
problem, interested
parties & situation.
Applies more than two
ethical decision
rules/tests/approaches in
an effort to resolve the
ethics issue(s).
8|Page