Meeting Notes
University Studies Advisory Committee
Participants
Curry Guinn
Linda Siefert
Phil Furia
Von Yeager
Steven Emslie
Jennifer Horan
March 19, 2014
Martin Posey
Mahnaz Moallem
Paul Townend
Tammy Hunt
Notetaker: Lea Bullard
Discussion Notes
1. Presentation: General Education Assessment Results 2010-2013 for Critical Thinking and Written
Communication (Linda Siefert)
a. Questions and comments:
i. We do not have a performance benchmark for all students
ii. Do you do analysis by students’ major?
iii. Some departments don’t do course numbering by sophistication level; sometimes,
courses are numbered according to a theme
iv. Providing the rubrics to the students and tailoring assignments to them could be
construed as “teaching to the test”
v. There may be pedagogical reasons for not telling, too specifically, students what they are
supposed to do.
b. What other information would be helpful to collect and analyze for assessment?
i. Ask for the students’ major
ii. Get data from upper-division courses for CT
iii. Are there plans to assess the capstone courses for CT?
c. What recommendations for improvement could the USAC begin considering?
i. We need to look at some ways to drive improvement while students are at the university
ii. Holding CTE workshops tends to bring together the same group of people each time so
those alone may not be enough; some ways to get more participants:
1. 10 minute roadshows to departments, alerting to issues and pointing to
resources (can prioritze to hit some of the units that may not be thinking about it
as much, and hit the ones that will be undergoing assessment in those areas
soon; would need to gather resources prior to this)
iii. Within each department, identify which faculty teach CT and WC
Critical Thinking and Written Communication


Curriculum Matrix that aligns the 17
components of University Studies with the 8
UNCW Learning Goals
General Education Assessment Schedule
◦ First Round (ending this semester): assessed all
Learning Goals and all components at least once in
3 years
◦ Next Round: to be determined; need USAC input
Results for
Composition,
FA, SBS, IDP,
AIL and WI





WC1
WC2
WC3
WC4
WC5
Context and Purpose for Writing
Content Development
Genre and Disciplinary Conventions
Sources and Evidence
Control of Syntax and Mechanics

Written Communication has been assessed 4
times since Spring 2010:
◦ Spring 2010 – Basic Studies: Composition, Fine Arts,
Social and Behavioral Science
◦ Sprint 2011 – Basic Studies: Composition and
Interdisciplinary Perspectives
◦ Spring 2013 – University Studies: Aesthetic,
Interpretative, and Literary Perspectives and Writing
Intensive

Spring 2010 Basic Studies
◦ Composition: ENG 201
◦ Fine Arts: FST 210, MUS 115, PSY 105

Spring 2011Basic Studies
◦ Composition: ENG 201
◦ Interdisciplinary Perspectives: WGS 210
◦ 300-level pilot

Spring 2013 University Studies
◦ AIL: FST 110, MUS 115, THR 121
◦ WI: ACG 445, NSC 415, SEC 372
Percent of work products scored 2 or higher.
Dimension
WC1 Context and Purpose
WC2 Content
Development
WC3 Conventions
WC4 Sources and Evidence
WC5 Syntax and
Mechanics
SP10
Comp
SP10
Fine Arts
SP10
Social
Behavioral
SP11
COMP
SP11
IDP
SP13
US
AIL
100%
78.9%
94.7%
76.6%
75.0%
76.4%
94.6%
69.7%
94.7%
67.2%
68.7%
75.5%
82.1%
75.0%
84.2%
78.1%
75.0%
72.6%
82.1%
52.6%
89.5%
77.8%
50.0%
76.8%
75.0%
77.6%
78.9%
84.4%
81.2%
83.8%
Dimension
WC1 Context and Purpose
% 2 and above
SP11 300-level Pilot
78.5%
% 3 and above
48.5%
WC2 Content Development
75.8%
30.3%
WC3 Conventions
WC4 Sources and Evidence
87.9%
93.9%
39.4%
42.4%
WC5 Syntax and Mechanics
97.0%
SP13 Writing Intensive 400-level Course
WC1 Context and Purpose
87.7%
63.6%
WC2 Content Development
86.4%
32.1%
WC3 Conventions
WC4 Sources and Evidence
WC5 Syntax and Mechanics
87.7%
80.2%
90.1%
30.9%
43.2%
46.9%
44.4%





Scores for Written Communication are, in
general, high compared to other LGs.
IRR for Written Communication is good and
improving over time.
Out-of-class assignments score higher than
in-class assignments.
Analysis of assignments indicates that they
usually match all of the dimensions.
Scores are not increasing to desired levels.
Results for
FA and AIL
History
SBS and UHIB





CT1 Explanation of Issues
CT2 Evidence: Analysis AND Question
Viewpoint
CT3 Context and Assumptions
CT4 Student’s Position
CT5 Conclusions and Related Outcomes

Critical thinking has been assessed 4 times
since Spring 2010:
◦ Spring 2010 – Basic Studies: Fine Arts and Social
and Behavioral Sciences
◦ Fall 2010 – Basic Studies: History
◦ Fall 2012 – University Studies: Understanding
Human Institutions and Behaviors
◦ Spring 2013 – University Studies: Aesthetic,
Interpretive and Literary Perspectives

Spring 2010 Basic Studies
◦ Fine Arts: MUS 115
◦ Social and Behavior Science: PSY 105, SOC 105

Fall 2010 Basic Studies
◦ History: HST 102, 103, 201

Fall 2012 University Studies
◦ UHIB: ANT 207, COM 160, PSY 105

Spring 2013 University Studies
◦ AIL: ENG 230, FST 110, THR 121
Percent of work products scored 2 or higher.
FA10
Basic
Studies
History
FA12
University
Studies
UHIB
SP13
University
Studies
AIL
73.7%
50.5%
66.7%
CT2a Evidence: Analysis
72.8%
40.8%
72.2%
CT2b Evidence: Question
Viewpoint
CT3 Context and Assumptions
40.9%
25.6%
48.6%
21.4%
47.2%
22.3%
54.2%
Dimension
SP10
Basic Studies
Fine Arts
CT1 Explanation of Issues
95.0%
CT2 Evidence (Holistic)
72.5%
CT3a Assumptions
NA
SP10
Basic
Studies
Social
Behavioral
Science
59.8%
64.0%
40.3%
59.2%
CT3b Context
CT4 Student’s Position
NA
51.1%
58.2%
25.3%
64.3%
CT5 Conclusions and Outcomes
NA
37.0%
59.6%
18.0%
56.9%




Scores for Critical Thinking are, in general, the
lowest of all rubrics.
IRR for Critical Thinking is, in general, the lowest
of all rubrics.
Analysis of assignments indicates that
◦ they often do not include directions/prompts that
indicate the need for certain dimensions of critical
thinking (like questioning the viewpoints of authors,
examining context and assumptions, etc.);
◦ they sometimes do not address the component SLOs.
This indicates that there is a lack of common
agreement on what critical thinking is that seems
to effect student performance.

What other assessment information would be helpful
to the USAC?
◦ Written Communication: ??
◦ Critical Thinking: data from upper-division courses
other??

What recommendations for improvement could the
USAC begin considering?
◦ Written Communication: CTE workshops and faculty
learning and teaching community for Writing Intensive
courses
other??
◦ Critical Thinking: promote a better understanding of the
dimensions of CT and how to create assignments that
promote critical thinking by…
other??