Report of General Education Assessment
2011 - 2012
General Education Committee 2011 – 2012
Joey Anderson, Chair - Mathematics
Jennifer Arnold – Library Services
Debbie Bouton – Learning Unit
Allan DiDonato - English, Reading, Humanities
Catherine Felton – Behavioral and Social Sciences
Lisa Foley – English, Reading, Humanities
Richard Helms – Behavioral and Social Sciences
Carolyn Jacobs – Arts and Communication
Helen Kolman - Mathematics
Jorge Koochoi – Foreign Language
Holly Maurer – Arts and Communication
Susan Oleson-Briggs - President’s Office
Erin Payton – Library Services
Theresa Russo – Arts and Communication
Lisa Spring - Science
Eric Taylor – Business and Accounting
Gary Walker – English, Reading, Humanities
Kathryn Wells – Behavioral and Social Sciences
Linda White - Arts and Communication
Terri Manning - Institutional Research
Denise Wells – Institutional Effectiveness
1
Contents
General Education Goals and Courses Used for Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year .................... 4
General Education Assessment Procedure................................................................................................................ 6
2011-2012 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary ................................................................. 7
General Education Goal One: Reading .................................................................................................................. 10
General Education Goal Two: Communication ..................................................................................................... 14
A.
Oral Communication Assessment: ........................................................................................................... 14
B.
Written Communication Assessment ....................................................................................................... 19
General Education Goal Three: Mathematics ........................................................................................................ 23
General Education Goal Four: Basic Use of Computers ....................................................................................... 27
General Education Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving ................................................................ 32
A.
COM 231 – Public Speaking.................................................................................................................... 33
B.
ENG 112 – Argument-Based Research .................................................................................................... 37
C.
PSY 150 – General Psychology ............................................................................................................... 41
D.
ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics ............................................................................................... 46
General Education Goal Six: Cultural Awareness ................................................................................................. 49
A.
COM 110 – Introduction to Communication ........................................................................................... 50
B.
SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II ............................................................................................................ 54
General Education Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Social Sciences ........................................................... 604
A.
HIS 131 – American History I ............................................................................................................... 615
B.
SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology ...................................................................................................... 58
General Education Goal Eight: Natural Sciences ................................................................................................ 671
General Education Goal Nine: Humanities/Fine Arts .......................................................................................... 704
A.
ART 111 – Art Appreciation ................................................................................................................. 715
B.
MUS 110 – Music Appreciation .............................................................................................................. 68
C.
HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture ...................................................................................................... 771
General Education Goal Ten: Information Literacy. ........................................................................................... 815
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................. 84
Goal One: Reading .................................................................................................................................................. 85
GOAL TWO: COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................................................... 87
A.
Oral Communication ................................................................................................................................ 87
B.
Written Communication ........................................................................................................................... 89
Goal Three: Mathematics ....................................................................................................................................... 90
Goal Four: Computer Skills ................................................................................................................................... 91
Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving .............................................................................................. 98
2
A.
COM 231 – Public Speaking.................................................................................................................... 98
B.
ENG 112 – Argument Based Research .................................................................................................... 99
C.
PSY 150 – General Psychology ............................................................................................................. 101
D.
ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics ............................................................................................. 102
Goal Six: Cultural Awareness ............................................................................................................................ 103
A.
COM 110 – Introduction to Communications........................................................................................ 103
B.
SPA 112 – Intermediate Spanish .......................................................................................................... 1031
Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Science ........................................................................................................ 109
A.
HIS 131 – American History.................................................................................................................. 109
B.
SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology .................................................................................................... 110
Goal Eight: Natural Sciences ............................................................................................................................... 111
Goal Nine: Humanities and Fine Arts ................................................................................................................. 112
A.
ART 111 – Art Appreciation.................................................................................................................. 112
B.
MUS 110 – Music Appreciation ............................................................................................................ 113
C.
HUM 130 – Myth in Human Culture ..................................................................................................... 113
Goal Ten: Information Literacy .......................................................................................................................... 113
3
General Education Goals and Courses Used for
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
Courses
General Ed Goal
assessed
Reading - Students will demonstrate the ability to obtain meaning from RED 090
print, electronic, and graphic resources.
Communication – Students will effectively communicate both orally and COM 110
in writing. Students will demonstrate the ability to locate, critically COM 231
evaluate, and present information.
ENG 111
Mathematics – Students will apply mathematical concepts and skills to MAT 115
analyze, manipulate, and interpret quantitative data.
MAT 161
Computer Skills – Students will demonstrate the basic computer skills CIS 110
necessary to function in a technological world.
CIS 111
Critical Thinking / Problem solving – Students will demonstrate the COM 231
ability to identify, analyze, question, and evaluate content as a guide to ENG 112
understanding and action.
PSY 150
ECO 251
Cultural Awareness – Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural COM 110
differences.
SPA 112
Social / Behavioral Sciences – Students will demonstrate an HIS131
understanding of social institutions and of the diversity of human SOC210
experiences within a framework of historical and cultural contexts.
Natural Sciences – Students will demonstrate comprehension of the BIO110
major steps of the scientific method.
Humanities / Fine Arts – Students will demonstrate knowledge of the ART 111
humanities and critical skills in assessing cultural/artistic merit and MUS 111
significance.
HUM 130
Information Literacy - Students will effectively use research techniques
to identify, select, use, document and evaluate information sources
appropriate to a particular need.
4
Library
Instruction
Classes/ENG
111
5
General Education Assessment Procedure
Every fall, the General Education Committee begins the process of creating a general education
portfolio for Central Piedmont Community College. The process is as follows:
1.
In early fall, sections of the appropriate courses by goal area are randomly selected by Planning and
Research for assessment.
2.
The randomly selected sections are distributed to committee members representing academic areas
reflected in the general education portfolio and the appropriate division directors and deans.
3.
Assessment data are collected by the faculty members assigned to those randomly selected sections
during the fall term.
4.
Grading is completed in fall for some courses and in spring for others.
5.
Faculty review, discuss results and decide what change, if any, they should make.
6.
Results are examined by the General Education Committee in the spring.
7.
Reports of results are made to the division directors of each unit.
8.
Committee members prepare a written report of assessment results, analysis and strategies for
improvement. Reports are reviewed by the committee and submitted to Planning and Research.
9.
Planning and Research compiles the written reports, assessment materials and student samples into a
portfolio.
10.
The committee edits the final report.
11.
The report is taken to the Learning Council and the Cabinet.
12.
A response is received from the deans in regard to action items, recommendations, budget issues,
needs, etc. by September 25th of the following year.
6
2011-2012 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary
Result
70% score 70 or
better
88% of students scored 70 or better
95% of seated students scored 70 or better
80% of online students scored 70 or better
80% of hybrid students scored 70 or better
70% score 3 of 5 on
rubric
88% of students scored 3 or better
88% of seated students scored 3 or better
89% of online students scored 3 or better
70% score 4 on all
parts of rubric
82% of students met minimum qualification
82% of seated students scored 3 or better
84% of online students scored 3 or better
70% score 3 of 5 in
3 goal areas
Computer Skills – Students will
demonstrate the basic computer
skills necessary to function in a
technological world.
80% will score 70
(7 of 10 points) or
higher on 2 exams
MAT 161 and MAT 115 –
78% of students met all three goal areas
MAT 161 74% of seated students met all three goal
areas
84% of online students met all three goal
areas
MAT 115 –
83% of seated students met all three goal
areas
73% of online students met all three goal
areas
94% of students met minimum qualifications
94% of seated and online students scored 70%
or higher on 2 exams (CIS110)
93% of seated and online students scored 70%
or higher on 2 exams (CIS111)
7
met
met
met
Reading - Students will
demonstrate the ability to obtain
meaning from printed, electronic,
and graphical resources.
Oral Communication - Students
will effectively communicate
orally by demonstrating the
ability to locate, critically
evaluate, and present
information.
Written Communication –
Students will effectively
communicate in writing by
demonstrating the ability to
locate, critically evaluate, and
present information.
Mathematics – Students will
apply mathematical concepts and
skills to analyze, manipulate, and
interpret quantitative data.
Met
met
Objective
met
General Ed Goal Area
ENG 112 – 70%
score 2 of 2 on
rubric
ENG 112 – 73% of students scored 2 of 2
79% of seated students scored 2 of 2
62% of online students scored 2 of 2
PSY 150 - 70% score
12 or better
PSY150 – 70% of students scored 12 or better
72% of seated students scored 12 or better
69% of online students scored 12 or better
ECO 251 - 70% of
students score 6 or
better
ECO 251 – 76% of students scored 6 or better
74% of seated students scored 6 or better
85% of online students scored 6 or better
SPA 112 - 70% score
70 or better
Social / Behavioral Sciences –
Students will demonstrate an
understanding of social
institutions and of the diversity of
human experiences within a
framework of historical and
cultural contexts.
Natural Sciences – Students will
demonstrate comprehension of
the major steps of the scientific
method.
70% meet objective
HIS 131 - 12 of 20
on rubric
SOC 210 - 2 of 3 on
rubric
70% score 70% or
above
Overall – 74% of students met the benchmark
74% of seated students met the benchmark
73% of online students met the benchmark
COM 110 – 85% of students scored 7 or more
of 10 points
85% of seated students scored 7 or better
93% of online students scored 7 or better
SPA 112 - 89% of students scored 70 or better
89% of seated students scored 70 or better
90% of online students scored 70 or better
met
COM 110 - 70%
score 7 of 10 points
met
COM 231 – 79% of students scored 3 or better
70% of seated students scored 3 or better
93% of online students scored 3 or better
Overall – 86% of students met the benchmark
85% of seated students met the benchmark
92% of online students met the benchmark
HIS 131 – 76% of students scored 12 or better
70% of seated students scored 12 or better
88% of online students scored 12 or better
SOC 210 –77% of students scored 2 or higher
70% of seated students scored 2 or better
92% of online students scored 2 or better
Overall – 77% of students met the benchmark
70% of seated students met the benchmark
90% of online students met the benchmark
94% of students scored 70% or higher
94% of seated students scored 70 or better
92% of online students scored 70 or better
8
met
Cultural Awareness – Students
will demonstrate knowledge of
cultural differences.
COM 231 – 70%
score 3 of 5 on
rubric
met
Critical Thinking / Problem solving
– Students will demonstrate the
ability to identify, analyze,
question, and evaluate content as
a guide to understanding and
action.
Information Literacy - Students
will effectively use research
techniques to identify, select, use,
document and evaluate
information sources appropriate
to a particular need.
MUS 110 - 70%
score 70 or above
MUS 110 – 72% of students scored 70 or above
69% of seated students scored 70 or above
81% of online students scored 70 or above
HUM 130 – 70%
score 3 of 5 on
rubric
HUM 130 -66% of students scored 3 or higher
53% of seated students scored 3 or better
73% of online students scored 3 or better
Pilot results:
70% score 6 out of
10 or higher
met
Overall – 77% of students met the benchmark
75% of seated students met the benchmark
81% of online students met the benchmark
ENG 111 – 73% of students scored 7 or more of
10 points
9
met
ART 111 –93% of students scored 70 or above
95% of seated students scored 70 or above
92% of online students scored 70 or above
met
ART 111- 70% score
70 or above
met
Humanities / Fine Arts – Students
will demonstrate knowledge of
the humanities and critical skills
in assessing cultural/artistic merit
and significance.
General Education Goal One: Reading
Students will demonstrate the ability to obtain meaning from printed, electronic, and graphic resources.
The reading goal was designed to ensure that each student meets a minimal level of competency in reading
comprehension skills. The following objective and means of assessment was set:
Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for competence in reading comprehension skills.
Means of assessment: 70% of students will receive at least a score of 70 or better on a cumulative final exam.
Because reading is not a college level course, those who place into English 111 on the college
placement test (Accuplacer) are considered adequate readers.
A CPT Reading Placement test score of 80 or above is considered competent in Reading. However, students
who do not complete the reading placement test with a score of 80 or above are required to take one (in a
series of ) reading course(s) before they are allowed to progress to English 111. Students in this group
(referred to developmental courses) will require further testing to determine competency in reading. The
number of students from the Fall 2011 with placement tests on file were referred to the following courses (no
reading score was present for 5589 students):
Number
437 (2.18%)
2,061 (10.26%)
4,501 (22.41%)
7,494 (37.32%)
14,493
Placement test scores
Less than 34
between 34 and 56
between 57 and 79
80 or above (college level)
Total Student
Referral to course enrollment
ABE (adult basic literacy)
RED 080 (developmental)
RED 090 (developmental)
ENG 111 (required college-level)
Reading 090 is a course selected for testing purposes because it is the last developmental course before
students enter college-level coursework. In fall 2011, the following number of students enrolled in Reading
090:
Term
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
44
Number Enrolled
1,082
10
Course and Number
RED 090
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Foley
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕ MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
1. Number of students evaluated or assessed: 110
2. Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 97
3. The number in question 2 represents 88% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Cumulative Final Exam Test
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
RED 090 Cumulative Final Exam
11
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Face-to-face
The RED 090 Cumulative Final Exam consists of both a scantron and an open-ended component. Several outof-date questions need to be removed from the scantron portion of the test and replaced with questions that
reflect current course content. Some instructor grading inconsistencies were found in the open-ended portion
of the test.
Online
Online assessments lack consistency across the RED online courses.
Overall
Adjustments need to be made to both the face-to face and online assessments. The creation of a departmental
answer sheet for the open-ended portion of the final exam would produce greater test reliability.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Face-to-face
Students showed greater success with questions that dealt with graphic illustrations and critical thinking skills.
Online
Students showed greatest success with questions that dealt with graphic illustrations.
Overall
Students showed greatest success with questions that dealt with content that was delivered closer to date of
the final exam.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
Face-to-face
Students showed less success with questions that dealt with vocabulary and the study system.
Online
Students showed less success with questions that dealt with the study system.
Overall
Students showed less success with the open-ended sections of the final exam (some students did not attempt
to answer either all or whole sections of the open-ended portions of the final exam.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
Students need ongoing review and reinforcement of content throughout the semester. Students need further
explanation and modeling of several steps in each of the three stages of the study system.
Online
Students need further explanation and modeling of several steps in each of the three stages of the study
system. Modeled content, via visual and auditory segments, needs to be added to the online classes.
Overall
Students need further explanation and modeling of several steps in each of the three stages of the study
system. Modeled content, via combined visual and auditory segments, needs to be added to the online
12
classes.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Inconsistences still remain in the grading of the open portions of the final exam.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Face-to-face
Create an answer sheet for the open-ended sections of the final exam. Have instructors create content review
activities throughout the semester.
Online
Have online instructors create and use departmental RED Final Exam (and Unit Tests). Modeled content, via
combined visual and auditory segments, needs to be added to the online classes.
Overall
Developmental Reading will be involved in the new Developmental Educational changes occurring at the
Developmental Program level. Create, update, and refine the RED Cumulative Final Exams.
Other comments about the assessment:
Note: The RED 090 sections 04 and 05 were not included due to the instructor moving.
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
SEATED CLASS Results
Number or students assessed: 57
Number of students who met assessment: 54
Percentage of students who met assessment: 95%
ONLINE CLASS Results
Number or students assessed: 35
Number of students who met assessment: 28
Percentage of students who met assessment: 80%
OVERALL Results
Number or students assessed: 110
Number of students who met assessment: 97
Percentage of students who met assessment: 88%
NOTE: Complete summary of data is in Appendix
The College Goal for Reading Was Met.
13
General Education Goal Two: Communication
Students will effectively communicate both orally and in writing. Students will demonstrate the ability to
locate, critically evaluate, and present information.
(Note: Students are assessed in both Communication and English classes for oral and written communication
skills.)
A. Oral Communication Assessment:
Objective:
70% of students will meet minimal objective for effective oral presentation.
Assessment Benchmark:
70% of student speeches evaluated will receive at least a score of 3 or
better on a 5-point evaluation rubric.
Two communication courses were selected for the assessment with the following enrollments in the
Fall 2011:
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
54
53
Number Enrolled
1,315
1,297
14
Course & Number
COM 110
COM 231
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: White
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 3 maximum value of 5
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 139
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 123
The number in question 2 represents 88.4% of students meeting the benchmark.
15
What method of assessment did you use?
Fall 2011 – Twenty-two sections of COM 110 and COM 231 were randomly selected by Planning and Research for CPCC’s General
Education Oral Communication assessment. The selected sections include classes taught by full-time and part-time Communication
faculty, traditional and distance learning sections (online and teleweb), and sections offered at various campuses.
A standard assignment for all students in these two courses is to prepare and deliver speeches (informative speeches in COM 110 and
persuasive speeches in COM 231). The instructors of the sections selected for GEN ED assessment are given standardized directions
for the recording of student speeches and for the return of the recordings to the designated person. The management of the COM 110
and COM 231 GEN ED Oral Communication Assessment process is the responsibility of the full-time Communication faculty member
serving on the College General Education Committee.
Spring 2012 - The faculty member responsible for GEN ED Oral Communication Assessment randomly distributes the recorded student
speeches to full-time Communication faculty to review. These are blind reviews and are completed using a standard oral
communication rubric (see attachment) developed and tested by Communication faculty. Sections were identified as COM 110 or COM
231 but were assigned a different section number. Each section included specifics about the assignment such as time limits, notes
allowed, source citations, visual aid requirements.
A summary of the benchmark items of the rubric include:
Students demonstrate adequate oral communication skills by including all or almost all of the following according to the oral
communication rubric:(see attached)
•An attention-getting introduction that orients the audience to the subject and motivates the audience to listen,
•Well-developed points with transitions and internal summaries; content should reflect excellent research and appropriate citation of
sources; focused, logical and coherent development of information; use of vivid, accurate language; good use of repetition to reinforce
key ideas, establish speaker credibility
•Use of vocal variety in rate, pitch and volume in order to maintain and heighten audience interest; effective pronunciation and
articulation; lacks inarticulates
•Confident physical stance; eye contact addresses the entire audience; complementary gestures that demonstrate enthusiasm
•When used, well-chosen visual aid(s) that effectively complement the presentation. PowerPoint is the recommended visual aid.
•Use of extemporaneous style, effective use of notes; well-polished delivery
•A conclusion that restates the central idea; summarizes main points; and uses an effective concluding statement which motivates the
audience.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Collection of student speeches from Fall 2011 COM 110 and COM 231 sections (samples provided to Planning and Research)
Oral Communication Rubric for COM 110 and COM 231 speech assessments (see attachment 1)
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Communication faculty are basically satisfied with the process of assessment. The faculty continues to have concerns with the actual
recording of speeches. Audio and visual recordings are sometimes sub-standard and difficult to assess. This is partly due to the
limitations of the camera audio and partly due to the operation and placement of cameras. Communication has purchased several new
digital cameras, but audio pick-up of speeches is still limited. If resources allow, the purchase of wireless microphones for student
speakers may resolve this problem. Another concern is the difficulties associated with PowerPoint- lighting, difficulty seeing slides. We
again suggest that COM classes have designated speaking areas with built-in recording equipment.
It was noted by COM faculty that students in COM 110 receive less instruction for presentations due to the broader scope of course
content. We recognize that a different rubric/standard may need to be developed.
Note: The COM full-time faculty completes reliability checks on a regular basis, using student speeches and the rubric as the tool for
assessment.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Face-to Face- Faculty noted that most student presentations showed appropriate organization and topic selection. Students had
appropriate conversational delivery style and used time effectively. Students effectively use research and oral cites to support points of
speech.
Distance - In reviewing last year’s report, it was noted that strengths were consistent with last year’s performance. Appropriate selection
of topics for assignment; students communicated positive orientation/connection to topic. Demonstrated understanding of development
16
of argument and appropriate organization patterns. Research was appropriate and oral cites were integrated. Good delivery; effective
use of nonverbals. Time was used productively. Effective use of PowerPoint to enhance interest and understanding of information.
Overall - Similar results to last year’s results indicated strengths noted in both groups. Consistency in assignments and assessments is
stressed by COM faculty for both online and face-to-face sections. Online COM students tend to have higher speech scores. This may
be due to priority registration recently implemented by College. COM 110 and COM 231 Online sections are high demand classes for
advanced students.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
While our students performed well overall, we did note areas which need continual reinforcement. Specific areas include concerns
related to incorporating research into presentations which include incomplete oral citations, lack of variety of resources. While
organization was generally appropriate, we noted some weakness in development of introductions to include preview and credibility of
speaker. Delivery concerns noted were robotic delivery, reading from PowerPoint and less than adequate eye contact. We also
observed instances of ineffective use of notes and slouching – these we attributed to lack of adequate speaking lecterns in the
classrooms.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
On balance, the majority of students assessed were developing competencies required for successful presentations. The faculty is
encouraged that student assessment scores were higher this year and we will seek to maintain this level of excellence. We believe that
the May 2011 workshop with part time faculty served to communicate the importance of General Education Assessment process, to
heighten their awareness of their role in student success and to include all faculty in productive strategy discussions.
The comparison of online and face-to-face course assessment pointed out the online students are doing as well or better in their oral
communication assignments. This may be attributed to consistency in assignments between the two delivery types and to the student
population given permission for early registration; these are typically motivated students who have successfully completed a year of
college. Online students may also withdraw earlier from classes they are not doing well in, leaving the more successful students in the
recorded speech group.
The COM faculty acknowledges the challenges that these courses and assignments present to our students. However, the majority of
the students do succeed in these two classes by demonstrating abilities to research, organize, develop and integrate information into
presentations with the assistance of technology and use effective verbal and nonverbal skills in their communication and to evaluate
critically the information being processed and delivered.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to imp rove teaching and learning in the
area?
Recommendations : Revise/update COM Booklets to include Oral Communication Rubric and Critical Thinking Rubric, Continue Gen Ed
workshops; COM chairs will work closely with new faculty to ensure they have information and resources to be successful in their
teaching, offer Best Practices for Teaching Communication workshops (review sample speeches), request PowerPoint and smart
classroom workshops for COM classes, share rubrics with part time faculty; intranet site for part time and full time faculty, continue to
share results of Gen Ed purpose, process and results with all COM faculty, share CPCC student speeches that scored 5. Encourage
all PT COM faculty to complete new Blackboard training and other learning/training opportunities offered by the College.
It is critical that part-time instructors be aware of the goals and objectives of the COM courses. It is also important that faculty
understand the process and role GEN ED Assessment has in reviewing and improving the COM courses to enhance student success.
Other comments about the assessment:
Note: Due to technical issues, two sections of COM 110 were not submitted.
A third section of COM 110 was not included because the instructor did not record the appropriate assignment – it was not appropriate
as assessment data.
17
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
SEATED CLASS Results
Number or students assessed: 92
Number of students who met assessment: 81
Percentage of students who met assessment: 88%
ONLINE CLASS Results
Number or students assessed: 47
Number of students who met assessment: 42
Percentage of students who met assessment: 89.3%
OVERALL Results
Number or students assessed: 139
Number of students who met assessment: 123
Percentage of students who met assessment: 88.4%
NOTE: Complete summary of data is in Appendix
The Oral Communication Goal Was Met.
18
B. Written Communication Assessment
The requirement of the English 111 course for students is designed to assure that each student meets a
minimal level of competence in writing. For this reason, faculty set the following objective:
Objective:
70% of students will be able to communicate effectively in writing.
Means of assessment: 70% of students will complete the writing exam with a passing grade.
One English course was selected for the assessment and the enrollments in Fall 2011
were as follows:
Term
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
116
Number Enrolled
2,831
19
Course & Number
ENG 111
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Walker
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕ English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕ Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literac y
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 4 out of maximum value of 4 on the rubric at a satisfactory level.
Please fill in the following information:
4.
5.
6.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 124
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 102
The number in question 2 represents 82% of students meeting the benchmark.
20
What method of assessment did you use?
Assignment: Choose one (1) of the following topics and write one (1) complete paragraph. Tell students to develop a paragraph that
represents their writing skills and talents. Include prewriting, drafting, and revising of the paragraph assignment. The paragraph should
include a topic sentence, supporting details, and an appropriate closing.
Students chose one (1) of the following topics:

Describe a risk that paid off.

What do you believe is the main purpose of a college education?

Explain or tell about a career that suits you best.
The grading will take place during the spring semester. The ENG 111 Committee will take volunteers from the English division who
would like to assist in grading the sections.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
The following Grading Rubric was used to evaluate each paragraph. Students must write a paragraph that meets all four elements.
 The paragraph has an appropriate topic sentence.
 The paragraph has supporting sentences that gave reasons/details/facts.
 The paragraph stays on one topic that is stated in the topic sentence.
 The paragraph meets standards of correctness.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
The strengths of the assessment are that the “paragraph” assessment is helpful in that it allows instructors to scrutinize the basics of
sentence/paragraph formation and how well students have mastered the concepts associated with these. Also, given the brevity of the
assessment, students will have to demonstrate efficiency in communicating their ideas (which, again, is an important aspect of the
writing methodology practiced in 111 courses). Instructors should be able to learn students’ grasp of basic mechanics and sentence
structure, as well as their ability to address a prompt.
However, the discussion continues about the type of assessment. While most don’t have any specific problems with the method of
assessment, though some do think it would be helpful to revise the assessment to evaluate students on a piece of writing that is more
complex (and representative of the strategies they’ve learned in the course).
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Many of my students are good readers and respond well to reading student essays.
Another strength is the ability to be concise. One of the things they seem to pick up on early in the class is that off topic, non-specific
content in an essay is a disservice to both themselves and their audience. Also, many students have demonstrated an exceptional
ability to think critically about the essays we read on a daily basis (i.e., they’re searching for a subtext as opposed to taking something at
face value).
All students seem to be thinking a bit more critically about their topics. They go beyond the basic prompts and offer some insightful
responses.
Interestingly, there was some agreement that online classes are doing better than they have in the past. In some cases, they are even
surpassing in-class courses in how well they develop their papers (grammar/mechanics, organization, critical thought).
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
Conversely, some expressed concern that students who are not as strong in writing are not as responsive or interactive. Providing
supplemental support to online students remains difficult.
Basic elements of grammar, usage and mechanics remain a concern. However, more responses arose about style and response in
students’ writing. One instructor noted that even though the content of students’ writing is often efficient, it is sometimes verbose.
Another comment addressed students’ abilities to focus on more specific analysis and development, noting a tendency toward
generalization in students’ writing.
21
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Faculty learned that students need to be vested in the process and interested in the topics. It is better to let them choose what they want
to write about than give them standard, boring topic ideas. Also, we need to hold all students accountable to a higher level of critical
thinking on basic topics while also encouraging them to use the process of writing that they learn in ENG 111 to make their writing
smooth and organized.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
While student continue to enter ENG 111 with certain deficiencies that may need remediation, students have improved in some areas.
Students seem to have a greater awareness of audience and a more defined critical ability in their writing.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and le arning in the
area?
Suggestions to improve instruction that emerged from faculty were to encourage instructors away from theoretical models like the fiveparagraph essay to an understanding of writing that develops from its own volition.
Another suggestion was to re-emphasize the idea of writing as a process. By emphasizing the stages in the process, students will be
able to develop the specific skills related to each stage. In the revision and editing stages, some of the basic concerns could be
addressed, but this would also allow students to understand the organic nature of developing the essay. Some have expressed interest
in exploring the portfolio style of teaching as a means to individualize and track student progress.
Other comments about the assessment:
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes:
Total
Met Standard
% Met Standard
14
11
79%
12
10
83%
11
10
91%
37
31
84%
Results for face-to-face classes:
Total
Met Standard % Met Standard
14
12
86%
20
15
75%
17
15
88%
16
13
81%
20
16
80%
87
71
82%
Overall results:
Total
124
Met Standard
102
% Met Standard
82%
The Written Communication Goal Was Met.
The College Goal for Communication Was Met.
22
General Education Goal Three: Mathematics
Students will apply mathematical concepts and skills to analyze, manipulate, and interpret quantitative data.
Math faculty determined that the skills necessary to meet the above goal are:
1.
The ability to analyze quantitative data
2.
The ability to manipulate quantitative data
3.
The ability the interpret quantitative data
Therefore, the following objective was set for the purpose of general education assessment:
Objective:
70% of those taking the final exam will show mastery of all three goals.
Means of Assessment: 70% of those taking the final exam will correctly answer three of five questions on each
of the three goal areas.
Two math courses were selected for the assessment and their enrollments for fall 2011 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
9
36
Number Enrolled
246
1,034
23
Course & Number
MAT 115
MAT 161
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Kolman
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕ MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 60maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 413
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 323
The number in question 2 represents 78% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Multiple Choice Questions on Final Exam.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Mastery on each of 3 goal requirements. (Student must have 60% of the questions correct on each of 3 parts.
24
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
The mathematics faculty see the general education questions as a reasonable cross section of the competencies for the courses and
agree that the questions appropriately asses the specified goal. In addition, mastery of the general education goal strongly correlates to
mastery of the course goals and a passing grade.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
The Mathematics goal is a three part goal. The first part requires that the students successfully analyze quantitative data given in
various formats-verbal, graphical and symbolic. The students in both College Algebra and Mathematical Models showed strength in this
part of the assessment.
The second part of the goal requires that the students successfully manipulate quantitative data using the symbolic tools of the course.
The students in Mathematical models showed the greatest strength in this area.
The third part of the goal requires that the students interpret quantitative data. This portion of the goal is the most complex . In the past
students scored lowest in this area. However, for the first time the College Algebra students showed the greatest strength in this area
with 92% of the students meeting the benchmark.
The online students in Mathematical Models showed strengths that paralled the strengths of the seated students although the
percentages were on average, 6% lower than the seated classes.
The online College Algebra Classes had strengths that paralled the strengths of the Mathamatical Models Students.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
The third part of the goal requires that the students interpret quantitative data. This portion of the goal is the most complex and the
students taking Mathematical Models had the lowest percentage of students demonstrating mastery. Historically students find the
synthesis of the analytic tool with the real world applications the most challenging portion of the assessment.
The online College Algebra students also had a lower mastery percentage in this area.
The lowest mastery percentage for all College Algebra students was in the second part of the goal. Even here the mastery level was
88%
What did the department faculty learn about their stude nts through the process?
Continued focus on contextual leaning as well as the translation of knowledge into graphical format can be effective in promoting the
higher level thinking skills required to master the syntheses of the analytical tools with the real world environment.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Since the third part of the assessment has consistently been the piece most difficult for the students, strategies for improvement have
been focused repeatedly in this area. To see the jump in achievement on this piece of the assessment for the College Algebra students
is very rewarding.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Learning in context will again be emphasized. Faculty will continue to focus on strategies dedicated to improving the students’ mastery
of the most complex part of the general education goal. Higher level thinking will be emphasized throughout the semester.
Instructors will focus on maintaining a balance between the calculator and the analytic process as solution methods.
Instructors will emphasize the integration between the characteristics of the graph and the characteristics of the function equation.
Online instructors will continue to utilize the tools provided by college to enhance online learning.
Insturctors will continue to experiment with the use of videos and add synchronous meetings as options for online classes.
Other comments about the assessment:
The College Algebra course is moving to a new text. This results in a revision of the Gen Ed assessment for the 2012-2013 year.
25
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Raw Data - Math Goals – 2011/2012
MAT161
Results for online classes:
Section (Coded)
Online
Number of Students
13
Mastered Goal 1
12
Mastered Goal 2
12
Mastered Goal 3
9
Mastered All Goals
8
2
22
22
22
21
21
3
28
27
25
27
24
4
23
21
21
21
18
5
23
20
22
22
20
MAT 161 Online Classes: 84% or 91 out of 109 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes:
Section (Coded)
Number of Students
Mastered Goal 1
Mastered Goal 2 19
Mastered Goal 3
Mastered All Goals
6
20
20
19
18
17
7
17
15
14
15
11
8
27
23
22
26
19
9
25
24
22
23
20
10
23
18
17
21
16
MAT 161 Face-to-Face Classes: 74% or 83 out of 112 students met the benchmark
MAT115
Results for online classes:
Section (Coded)
Online
Number of Students
17
Mastered Goal 1
16
Mastered Goal 2
15
Mastered Goal 3
13
Mastered All Goals
10
Online
18
14
17
14
11
3
27
26
25
23
21
4
27
27
25
25
23
5
20
17
19
18
15
MAT 115 Online Classes: 73% or 80 out of 109 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes:
Section (Coded)
Number of Students
Mastered Goal 1
Mastered Goal 2 19
Mastered Goal 3
Mastered All Goals
6
15
13
15
11
10
7
12
10
10
10
8
8
29
29
28
27
26
9
25
23
25
25
23
MAT 115 Face-to-Face Classes: 83% or 67 out of 81 students met the benchmark
The College Goal for Mathematics Was Met.
26
General Education Goal Four: Basic Use of Computers
Students will demonstrate the basic computer skills necessary to function in a technological world.
To measure the goal, the following objective was set:
Objective:
80% of students enrolling in CIS 110 and CIS 111 will score a 70% or higher on the combined
scores for the first two in-course exams.
All degree-seeking students must take either CIS 110 (college transfer programs) or CIS 111 (applied science
programs). Both of these courses require that students pass five exams plus other course work to pass the
course. The 1st exam is 100% multiple choice-T/F. The 2nd is 100% hands-on, skill-based testing. The CIS faculty
determined that "demonstrating basic computer skills" would be satisfied by the 80% of students who
complete both tests and made a 70% or above. Enrollments in these courses are very heavy. During the Fall
2011 term, the following numbers enrolled in CIS110:
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
55
18
Number Enrolled
1,532
448
27
Course & Number
CIS 110
CIS 111
A. CIS110 – Introduction to Computers
Name of person completing report: Lisa LaCaria
Name of Department:
Information Technology
Goal Measured:
Computer Skills
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
CIS 110
What was the benchmark for this measure?
80% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed:290
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 272
The number in question 2 represents 94% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
•
start and shut down
•
using Windows OS
•
how to work with desktop
(Windows - sizing/moving, opening/closing icons & menus
•
disk formatting
•
file copying/deleting/moving
•
creating folders
•
start/close applications
•
use a word processor
•
terminology (hardware and software)
•
computer components
What tool did you use?
The course requires students to work within a simulation experience, work on projects, and complete exams in
order to pass the course. The first two exams are 100% multiple choice-T/F which covers the basics of the
computer.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Adequate for now; evaluating other options. Overall it's a good assessment of basic computer knowledge. A
good mix of terminology and skills based testing.
What student strengths were observed?
Students who came in to CIS110/111 that didn't meet the basic computer skills came out knowing these basic
skills plus being able to work Word,Excel, and Powerpoint.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Microsoft Access was shown to be one of the weak points amongst students.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
The students got a little confused with going between blackboard and MyITLab. Some of the questions and
28
some of the assignments need reworking. Some of the ways the questions were asked tended to confuse
some students.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this
year?
They moved from a blackboard system to a MyITLab system to help with the testing compenents by providing
a more realistic simulation of the software that is being taught.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
We will be restructuring the CIS110 class next Fall with a new book and delivery of content. So, we may need
to reevaluate the assessment once the change has been put in place.
Other comments about the assessment:
Questions and some of the assesments are being reworked to help students not get confused.
Detailed summary of assessment data is located in the Appendix
29
B. CIS111 – Basic PC Literacy
Name of person completing report: Shareef Ajam
Name of Department:
Information Technology
Goal Measured:
PC Literacy
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
CIS 111
What was the benchmark for this measure?
80% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
4.
5.
6.
Number of students evaluated or assessed:215
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 200
The number in question 2 represents 93% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
 PC Foundations
 Inside the Computer Case
 Windows 7 Basics
 Windows 7 File System Foundations
 Internet Fundamentals
 Windows 7 Security Foundations
 System Maintenance
 Printing
 Introduction to Google Apps
 Introduction to Google Apps E-mail
 Introduction to Google Calendar
 Introduction to Google Docs and web-based word processing
 Introduction to Google Docs: Spreadsheets
 Introduction to Google Docs: Presentations
What tool did you use?
Moodle based quizzes.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Adequate for now; evaluating other options. Overall it's a good assessment of basic computer knowledge. A
good mix of terminology and skills based testing.
What student strengths were observed?
Students who came in to CIS111 that didn't meet the basic computer skills came out knowing these basic
skills plus being able to work Google Apps.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Google Spreadsheets was shown to be one of the weak points amongst students.
30
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Student engagement and active participation was key to success.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this
year?
Updating curriculum and the need to differentiate content from CIS 110 was needed.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Fine tweaking curriculum with more hands on labs
Other comments about the assessment:
Detailed summary of assessment data is located in the Appendix
The College Met The Basic Use of Computers Goal.
31
General Education Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Students will demonstrate the ability to identify, analyze, question, and evaluate content as a guide to
understanding and action.
Efforts this year toward assessments of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving have been completed in multiple
courses:
Critical thinking assessments were conducted in COM 231, ENG 112, PSY 150 and ECO 251.
During the fall 2009 term, course enrollments for COM 231, ENG 112, PSY 150 ECO 251 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
53
42
44
13
Number Enrolled
1,297
1,031
1,419
339
Objective:
70% of students will meet minimal standard set for Critical Thinking.
32
Course & Number
COM 231
ENG 112
PSY 150
ECO 251
A. COM 231 – Public Speaking
To measure the goal, the following objective was set:
Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal standards for Critical Thinking using the student’s
persuasion speech as the basis for assessment.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: White
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕ Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕ COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 3 maximum value of 5
Please fill in the following information:
1.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 68
33
2.
3.
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 54
The number in question 2 represents 79.4% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Fall 2011 - Planning and Research randomly selected ten sections of COM 231 sections for critical thinking assessment. Students in all
sections of COM 231 are given the required assignment to prepare and deliver persuasive speeches. The selected sections include
classes taught by full-time and part-time Communication faculty, traditional and distance learning sections (online and teleweb), and
sections offered at various campuses.
The instructors of the sections selected for GEN ED assessment are given standardized directions for the recording of student speeches
and for the return of the recordings to the designated person. The management of the COM 231 GEN ED Critical Thinking Assessment
process is the responsibility of the full-time Communication faculty member serving on the College General Education Committee. .
Spring 2012 - The student speeches in the selected sections were recorded and reviewed by full time Communication faculty in a blind
review, randomly assigned process. The faculty member responsible for GEN ED Oral Communication Assessment randomly
distributes the recorded student speeches to full-time Communication faculty to review. Sections were identified as COM 231 but were
assigned a different section number. Each section included specifics about the assignment such as time limits, notes allowed, source
citations, visual aid requirements. These are blind reviews and are completed using a standard oral communication rubric (see
attachment) developed and tested by Communication faculty.
A student demonstrated critical thinking in a persuasive speech by consistently doing all or almost all of the following according to the
critical thinking rubric:(Complete rubric is attached in Appendix to the General Education Report.)
Does most or many of the following:
•
Restates or reviews evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
•
Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
•
Superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view.
•
Justifies some results with limited explanation.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Collection of student persuasive speeches from Fall 2011 COM 231 sections (samples provided to Planning and Research)
Critical Thinking Rubric for COM 231 speech assessments
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Faculty view of the process/tool was consistent with previous years’ reports. Since the primary source for assessment is student
speeches, the faculty continues to have concerns with the actual recording of the speeches. Audio and visual recordings are sometimes
sub-standard and difficulty to assess. This is partly due to the limitations of the camera audio and partly due to the operation and
placement of cameras. Communication has purchased several new digital cameras, but audio pick-up of speeches is still limited. If
resources allow, the purchase of wireless microphones for student speakers may resolve this problem. Faculty recommendations
include having class instructors review recorded speeches prior to submitting to ensure that recording has occurred and is viewable,
providing instructions and training for all COM faculty with recommendations for lighting and audio placements for student speakers and
appropriate video inclusion of visuals/PowerPoint. Another suggestion is that COM classes have designated speaking areas with built-in
recording equipment.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online an d face-to-face
classes, if applicable)
Generally students selected appropriate topics for persuasive speeches. Research was used effectively to enhance speaker credibility
and as evidence to support positions. Also generally students showed good development of problem-solution process. Faculty noted
that student speakers were appropriately interpreting evidence to support arguments.
Students used effective organizational patterns for persuasive speeches, most commonly used are problem-solution or motivational
sequence. Topics were appropriate for persuasive speeches and often focused on timely issues. Research and critical thinking skills
were evident in the selection of evidence and accurate interpretation of research presented in the speeches. Visuals (PowerPoint
slides) supported evidence used in speeches.
It was noted that online classes scored much higher than face to face classes. While all online classes were taught by full time faculty, it
was also noted that with priority registration, high demand online classes fill up first. Additionally faculty think that online students who
may be struggling tend to drop out of the class sooner – whereas, face to face students persist so that they are included in the
assessment.
34
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
In face to face classes, students were not as consistent in backing up arguments with research sources. They also tended not to have
strong counter arguments.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
As we reported in previous assessment reports, the COM faculty recognizes that Public Speaking courses are often a challenge for
students who have minimal research and organizational skills and that many students also experience high levels of public speaking
anxiety. In addition, the development and oral presentation of a persuasive argument is a complex process that many students are
undertaking for the first time in their public speaking class. Instructors need to provide the tools and the classroom support for preparing
students for this assignment.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
COM 231 will not be used for assessment of the Critical Thinking Goal after 2011-2012 cycle. However the COM faculty views critical
thinking as an integral part of Communication. The COM faculty will pursue revision of the Oral Communication rubric with increased
emphasis on Critical Thinking.
Other comments about the assessment:
Note: All online COM 231 sections are currently taught by full-time COM faculty
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes
Critical Thinking -Distance Classes
Scored Scored
5
4
COM 231 06 &07
3
3
COM 231-08
0
3
COM 231-09
4
3
Total
7
9
% met
assessment
Scored
3
6
3
1
10
Total scoring 3 or
better
12
6
8
26
Scored 1
or 2
1
1
0
2
Total
Assessed
13
7
8
28
92.80%
COM 231 Online Classes: 92.8% or 26 out of 28 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Critical Thinking - On
Campus
Scored
5
COM 231 -01
0
COM 231-02
0
COM 231-03
0
COM 231-04
0
COM 231-05
0
COM 231-10
0
Total
0
% met
Scored
4
0
3
0
4
2
2
11
Scored
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
17
Total scoring 3 or
better
3
5
3
7
5
5
28
35
Scored 1
or 2
3
3
4
0
1
1
12
Total
Assessed
6
8
7
7
6
6
40
70%
assessment
COM 231 Face-to-Face Classes: 70% or 28 out of 40 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
1ritical Thinking - Overall Results
Scored Scored
5
4
COM 231 -01
0
0
COM 231-02
0
3
COM 231-03
0
0
COM 231-04
0
4
COM 231-05
0
2
COM 231-10
0
2
COM 231 06 &07
3
3
COM 231-08
0
3
COM 231-09
4
3
Totals
7
20
% met
assessment
Scored
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
6
3
1
27
Total scoring 3 or
better
3
5
3
7
5
5
12
6
8
54
Scored 1
or 2
3
3
4
0
1
1
1
1
0
14
Total
Assessed
6
8
7
7
6
6
13
7
8
68
79.40%
Overall 79.4% or 54 out of 68 students met the benchmark
36
B. ENG 112 – Argument-Based Research
Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal standards for Critical Thinking using student essays as the
basis for assessment.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Walker
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 2 maximum value of 2
Please fill in the following information:
7.
8.
9.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 156
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 114
The number in question 2 represents 73% of students meeting the benchmark.
37
What method of assessment did you use?
We asked the selected instructors to submit one of the assignments from their Fall 2011 ENG 112 course section. The assignments
varied from letters to editors, Rogerian arguments, Toulmin arguments, and Solution Finding projects. Most instructors submitted either
a Rogerian or Toulmin argument assignment, and both are very common critical thinking tools used in ENG 112.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
We revised the rubric to simplify the process. In the past, we focused on how well a student incorporated research into the paper.
However, we have found that the assessment of critical thinking should take precedence, and simply incorporating research into an
assignment does not prove critical thinking.
TRAIT
Other salient perspectives and
positions
Key assumptions
Unacceptable (1)
Deals only with a single
perspective and fails to discuss
other salient perspectives
Does not surface the
assumptions and ethical issues
that underlie the issue
Acceptable (2)
Identifies other salient
perspectives drawn from outside
information
Identifies some of the key
assumptions and ethical issues
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Ple ase note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Faculty felt that the new rubric accurately assesses a student’s ability to think critically in ENG 112. The new rubric focuses on the
concept of whether the student can question assumptions and consider multiple viewpoints instead of just being able to incorporate
research without questioning its relevance to the assignment. However, the variety of assignments does not allow an accurate
comparison between all sections. Therefore, we will encourage faculty to submit a Toulmin argument assignment, which most faculty
incorporate into the ENG 112 class. Even though the purpose of a Toulmin argument is to persuade the audience of the author’s
opinion, it must incorporate and analyze other viewpoints. We believe that assessing the Toulmin argument papers in the future will
provide a more accurate assessment and improve our results. If instructors prefer to submit another assignment, we will ask them to
provide an information sheet that will elucidate how the assignment was described and how the instructor’s expectations for the
assignment were explained to the students.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
-
We did not see any real differences between the online submissions and the in-class assignments.
Most students gave an in-depth analysis of at least one varying viewpoint and others excelled at analyzing multiple viewpoints
Many students offered real-world examples to further engage their reader; also, many examples had a local context, which
shows that students are considering how these issues affect their local community.
Most of the research offered was scholarly and current. They were utilizing the library databases, which is highly encouraged in
ENG 112.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
-
We did not see any real differences between the online submissions and the in-class assignments.
Those who failed simply gave a one sentence acknowledgement (if that) of another viewpoint. (For example, “Even though
others may disagree, I feel ……”)
38
-
Some students did not follow the assignment instructions; therefore, their papers were difficult to assess.
A few students who did acknowledge another viewpoint gave a very brief and superficial analysis.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
-
Faculty learned that we need to incorporate smaller critical thinking assignments that will progress the students into the larger
paper assignments where critical thinking is a must.
As in years past, those students who seem more vested in the chosen topic (and we are assuming they chose it) fared far
better than students who had to choose from a list of instructor-approved topics.
The department’s push for all instructors to use the embedded librarian resource in online sections and library instruction
courses within in-class sections has improved the quality of sources used within ENG 112 assignments.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
We learned that simply incorporating research into a paper does not guarantee that a student uses appropriate critical thinking skills for
success in ENG 112.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
As a division, we will continue to focus on improving critical thinking in the classroom by focusing on in-class discussion, group projects
and papers that students are invested in and moving them through the steps of critical thinking, exploring multiple viewpoints,
understanding various assumptions and developing strong arguments that incorporate scholarly research. In online instruction, we will
try to incorporate more of a “workshop” atmosphere (something that goes beyond the discussion board) to provide more individual
assistance that mimics in-class section experience.
Other comments about the assessment:
None
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes
Section
Total
Passed
Fail
80
14
10
4
89
16
10
6
88
14
10
4
92
11
4
7
Total Assessed Online: 55
Total Passed Online: 34
Total Failed Online: 21
ENG 112 Online Classes: 62% or 34 out of 55 students met the benchmark
39
Results for face-to-face classes;
Section
Total
Passed
Fail
4
18
13
5
43
22
16
6
67
20
17
3
46
20
14
6
79
21
20
1
Total Assessed In-class: 101
Total Passed In-class: 80
Total Failed In-class: 21
ENG 112 Face-to-Face Classes: 79% or 80 out of 101 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Section
Total
Passed
Fail
80
14
10
4
89
16
10
6
88
14
10
4
92
11
4
7
4
18
13
5
43
22
16
6
67
20
17
3
46
20
14
6
79
21
20
1
Total Assessed: 156
Total Passed: 114
Total Failed: 42
Overall: 73% or 114 out of 156 students met the benchmark
40
C. PSY 150 – General Psychology
Objective:
70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 7 of 10 questions.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Helms
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕ MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 12 maximum value of 20
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 213
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 150
The number in question 2 represents 70% of students meeting the benchmark.
41
What method of assessment did you use?
Ten psychology faculty members were selected for the sample. Six were full-time faculty, and five were part-time faculty. Faculty
members, both full- and part-time, were randomized for section selection. After selection order was established using an online
randomizing program, each faculty member's list of classroom sections was acquired, and they were randomized. The goal was to take
the first-ordered class section provided by the random selection program. In case of an imbalance between face-to-face and online
classes, I decided to take the first randomized class section that met the need for equal distribution with the last ordered faculty member.
This was not necessary, as the randomizer provided five face-to-face and five online classes with the first selection. Students were
supplied with a research scenario and asked to answer eight multiple choice questions designed to measure their critical thinking skills
across four levels of difficulty and yielding a score which equates to one of four levels of proficiency.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
We used the same instrument employed for the last two years (2009-2011), consisting of an experimental scenario positing an
accelerated reading program for preschool children, and disussing the impact on that training on elementary school reading skills,
followed by eight weighted questions examining students' abilities to recall and understand key experimental terminology, analyze
research results, and evaluate outcomes, based on the major components of the cognitive domain of Blooms Taxonomy.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
The Psychology faculty has a favorable impression of the assessment; it appears to be a reliable instrument for measuring critical
thinking in psychology. It may be necessary to expand the assessment tool in order to place greater emphasis on evaluative/critical
thinking questions rather than on recognition of basic experimental method terms. No differences were seen between online and faceto-face classes.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Face-to-face
82 of 114 met benchmark; 72% success rate. This was slightly lower than the previous year, but an improvement over two years earlier.
Online
68 of 99 met benchmark; 69% success rate. Data indicates that online students are scoring just below benchmark and three percentage
points below traditional classroom settings. Numbers may have been affected slightly by lack of data from one online classroom.
Overall
150 of 213 met benchmark; 70% While this meets the benchmark for the second year in a row, this number was six percentage points
lower than 2010-2011, and there is room for improvement in both in-class and online students' demonstrated critical thinking skills
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
The data seems to indicate that face to face and online students are having more difficulty with questions tapping level one critical
knowledge and basic comprehension and did disporportionately better on level three critical synthesis and level four critical evaluation.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
Face to face classroom students declined slightly this year compared to performance in 2010-2011 (78%), but showed considerable
improvement over performance in 2009-2010 (60%).
Online
Online students also showed a decline in overall performance from 2010-2011 (75% meeting benchmark), but still showed significant
gains compared to 60% meeting the benchmark in 2009.
Overall
The department is pleased to have met the overall benchmark for a second year in a row, indicating that a focus on the development of
varied instructorial techniques, both in class and particularly on line are helping our students develop the ability to think critically.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Targeting critical thinking through an increased instructional focus on this subject matter prepared them more fully for the assessment
and developing alternative methods for delivering the information helped more students to fine tune their critical thinking skills
42
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Development of additional assessments in the area of Learning Principles and Perspectives in Psychology to match our department's
outcome statements. As a group, PSY150 instructors should discuss methods to optimize students' familiarity with key critical thinking
components.
Other comments about the assessment:
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Most of in class and online classes used an assessment that was delivered through Bb exam format. The assessment was scored
electronically, using the Blackboard scoring utility, which also provides several levels of statistical analysis. These levels of statistical
analysis include an overall presentation of mean, variance, standard deviation, and grade ranges; and the availability of a question-byquestion analysis of group achievement in percentages. Instructors were asked to provide both the Test Statistics ("Column Statistics"
page in Blackboard) and the Item-by-Item evaluation ("Attempts Statistics" in Blackboard) to the Gen Ed Representative. Bb generally
allows options for printing class distribution on the critical thinking assessment, determining how many students met the benchmark
requires adding up those students who scored 60% or above (12 points or higher on the assessment) and individual performances must
be tracked down physically from Bb records.
Critical data is as follows:
PROGRAM WIDE:
N = 213
60% or higher: 150 (69.77%) Rounds to 70
Mean: 13.999
FACE TO FACE:
N = 114
60% or higher: 82 (71.93%)
Mean score : 14.39
ONLINE
N = 99
60% or higher: 68 (68.69%) Rounds to 69
Mean Score: 13.55
FULLTIME
N = 160
60% or higher: 111 (69.375%) Rounds to 69
Mean : 13.81
PARTTIME
N = 53
60% or higher: 39 (73.58%)
Mean : 14.58
Question by Question Analysis
Correct Answer Options Are Indicated by and Asterisk
43
Question #1:
What is the independent variable in this experiment?
Correct
children 20.45%
reading levels 10.6%
*Tutoring 53.79%
Books 3.03%
Unanswered 0.0%
Question #2:
What variable is represented by the reading entrance scores in kindergarten?
Correct
independent 6.82%
Control
12.12%
*Dependent 71.97%
research 9.09%
Unanswered 0.0%
Question #3
In this experiment reading scores for the pre-school tutoring group are compared against reading scores from which group?
Correct
placebo 6.82%
Experimental 12.9%
independent 4.55%
*Control 75.76%
Unanswered 0.0%
Question #4
The results of this experiment indicate that:
Correct
Tutoring is the cause of success in reading. 10.6%
*tutoring is positively correlated with reading ability. 84.09%
Tutoring is negatively correlated with poor reading skills. 0.0%
No relationship exists between tutoring and reading skills at this point in time. 5.30%
Unanswered (0) 0.0%
Question #5:
If children in the control group had outscored those in the experimental group what would this have suggested?
Correct
Nothing, the hypothesis is still supported. 12.9%
*There is a negative correlation between preschool tutoring and reading scores 44.70%
There is no correlation between tutoring and reading skills indicated. 29.50%
The hypothesis is wrong and preschool tutoring is a waste of time. 2.12%
Unanswered. 75%
Question #6
If you were continuing research in this area what is the most significant change you could make in a future research design to control
against a selection bias?
Correct
44
First, conduct a survey. 16.67%
*Remove the stipend and draw the sample of subjects randomly from a number of different school districts. 54.55%
Remove the stipend as a condition of the experiment. 5.30%
Conduct a double –blind study. 22.73%
Unanswered 0 .75%
Question #7
What is the most important role that operational definitions play in the science of experimentation?
Correct
They allow a researcher to confirm their own hypothesis. 12.9%
If they are good they rule out the need for further experiments. 1.5%
*They allow other researchers to replicate the experiment and further test the hypothesis. 76.52%
They make the results significant. 8.33%
Unanswered 0 .75%
Question #8
If you were a parent (of a pre-school child) and a member of the CMS school board, what goal might you recommend for your school
district in response to these findings?
Correct
Petition the board to raise the salaries of tutors. 1.5%
Press for more reading facilities. 6.06%
*Provide greater access to tutoring for all children in pre-school. 90.15%
Make no recommendations. 2.27%
Unanswered (0) 0.0%
Summary of Results:
PSY 150 Online Classes: 69% or 68 out of 99 students met the benchmark
PSY 150 Face-to-Face Classes: 72% or 82 out of 114 students met the benchmark
Overall 70% or 150 out of 213 students met the benchmark
45
D. ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics
Objective:
70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 6 of 10 questions.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: TAYLOR
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕ Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕ Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
60% of students will score a minimum of 6 maximum value of 10
Please fill in the following information:
10. Number of students evaluated or assessed: 194
11. Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 148
12. The number in question 2 represents 76.3% of students meeting the benchmark.
46
What method of assessment did you use?
10 Question Scenario Based Economics Quiz. Questions were chosen by faculty and approved by the Gen Ed. Committee. Chosen
questions require students to think through economic scenarios to arrive at a correct conclusion.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
See Attachment #1
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
The faculty likes the assessment tool in terms of critical thinking. The assessment is perceived to be moderately difficult for the subject
material with a focus on evaluating comparative statics theory. Critical thinking is needed for students to apply the theory through
several small scenario based questions to arrive at a correct answer, typically looking at the before and after effects of a shock to an
economic system. Students are then required to correctly predict the results of the shock.
There were no differences in the assessment for face-to-face sections and online sections.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
The students’ ability to read/manipulate/calculate graphs seems to be higher when compared to previous semesters. The economics
dept. has increased the math pre-requisite for the class from MAT 070 to MAT 080. The expectation is the assessment scores would
increase, but we observed no substantial change.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and faceto-face classes, if applicable)
Faculty generally seemed to observe that ‘good students’ performed well and ‘poor students’ did not. This hypothesis was actually
tested and discussed in detail (see next section).
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Overall results did not change substantially from the previous years. Since there is no change in the overall data the faculty decided to
attempt to answer a few other questions regarding the assessment and other student indicators. One hypothesis questioned if the
assessment wasn’t just testing economic knowledge. Or stated more formally, is student classroom performance for supply and
demand material a good predictor for a supply and demand assessment? A second hypothesis questioned if the high performing
students scored higher than lower performing students. Or stated more formally, was a student’s final average a good predictor of the
assessment score?
Five separate regressions were performed in the following fashions:

Gen Ed Assessment = b0 + b1*(Exam 1 Scores)

Gen Ed Assessment = b0 + b1*(Homework #1 Scores)

Gen Ed Assessment = b0 + b1*(Homework #2 Scores)

Gen Ed Assessment = b0 + b1*(Final Average)

Gen Ed Assessment = b0 + b1*(All Assignments)
The critical thinking assessment is evaluated through the supply and demand theory. A large portion of Exam 1 consists of Supply &
Demand. Homework #1 and #2 are the Supply and Demand homework assignments.
Regression results are attached (See Attachment #2) and general observations are as follows. Statistical significance existed in all
assignments except HW#1. Correlations and R-Squared values were extremely low. For each regression, roughly 80% of the variation
in the Gen Ed Assessment scores is left unexplained. This is viewed by the economics faculty as far too low to draw any meaningful
conclusions.
The economics dept. concluded that “economic knowledge” is not a good predictor of success for the Gen Ed Assessment. The results
were surprising. The faculty expected the opposite result – one in which higher scores on homework assignments and exams yielded
higher assessment scores. This does help answer the often posed question of “Are we measuring economic knowledge by using an
47
economics context in the assessment.”
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Last year, economics did use a different text book. Changing the questions because of this was considered but decided against. We
were able to see if changing the textbook would have any impact on the assessment experience. The faculty thought there would be a
negligible difference for face-to-face classes but a possible gap for online sections that rely heavily on the text for learning.
Results did not change substantially, suggesting the textbook change did not have a large impact on assessment scores.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Further evidence based hypothesis testing will most likely be implemented. The economics faculty is interested in the existence of a
number of statistically observable trends. Future ideas will most likely analyze the math background of a student on assessment scores,
previous economics classes on assessment scores, etc. Changes in strategies would be more likely if it is shown that there is a
statistically measurable effect on student learning.
Other comments about the assessment:
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes
25182,84,85
%
Passed
85%
#
Passed
39 Count 46
ECO 251 Online Classes: 85% or 39 out of 46 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
251-02
251-04
251-06
251-07
251-09
251-11
251-16
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
79%
68%
75%
71%
71%
71%
80%
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
15 Count 19
15 Count 22
12 Count 16
15 Count 21
17 Count 24
15 Count 21
20 Count 25
ECO 251 Face-to-Face Classes: 74% or 109 out of 148 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Total
Results
%
Passed
#
76% Passed
148 Count 194
Overall 76% or 148 out of 194 students met the benchmark
Overall 74% of students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
74% of seated students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
73% of online students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
48
The College Goal for Critical Thinking Was Met.
General Education Goal Six: Cultural Awareness
Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural similarities and differences.
Because cultural awareness is not the domain of one discipline but is viewed by the College as being
incorporated across the curriculum, assessment for cultural awareness should be done in a number of General
Education courses. This assessment has been conducted in COM 110 and SPA 112.
Enrollments for Fall 2011 are as follows:
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
54
10
Number Enrolled
1,315
202
Objective:
70% of students taking COM 110 Cultural Awareness test will answer correctly 7 of 10 questions;
70% of SPA 112 students will score 80% or higher on the assessment.
49
Course & Number
COM 110
SPA 112
A. COM 110 – Introduction to Communication
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Russo
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕ Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕ Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕ COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70 % of students will score a minimum of 7 maximum value of 10
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 769
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 657
The number in question 2 represents 85.4% of students meeting the benchmark.
50
What method of assessment did you use?
Students completed a 10 question multiple choice test assessing student knowledge of cultural differences and similarities relevant to
communication course content. The assessment was given in all sections of COM110 (47 total sections. 43 traditional, 4 distance
(COM110-80 not included). Questions were related to communication/culture and language, nonverbal, gender, and perception.
Students were given an incentive for successfully completing the assessment in approximately 80% of the sections. Incentive was
dependent on the section and varied from extra credit points, to a stand-alone grade, to extra final exam points. Assessment was
administered after 10/25 and before the close of the semester. Each instructor determines the optimal time for assessment.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
A 10 question multiple choice assessment.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Faculty discussed potential reasons for online students exceeding the assessment at 93%. This may be attributed to the fact that two
(2) sections took the assessment via Blackboard and had the benefit of open book. Faculty suggested using time limits for Blackboard
assessment. Faculty discussed revising some questions to reflect an “A” response. It was noted in reviewing results of the test that
students may question responses since no correct response was choice “A”. Faculty considered changing the order of the questions.
Questions #8 and #9 will be revised and piloted in 2 sections to determine benefits of change. Faculty was satisfied that the assessment
seemed to reflect a balanced response to the questions.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Overall results were higher overall vs. previous year. This is the second year using this textbook and instructors have become more
comfortable with it. Students have a clear understanding of cultural vocabulary. Focus groups conducted in some sections of COM110
after the assessment was given indicate that students appreciate that cultural differences are stressed in the COM110 course. Students
are responsive to organized focus on the impact of culture in communication due to the diverse nature of our student population,
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
Faculty recognized that students may lack strength in recognizing the possibility of more than one correct answer (q. 8—answer is both
A & C).
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Generally students are open about recognizing culture as an integral component of effective communication.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as c ompared to this year?
Full-time faculty shared the importance of this process, goals, tools, and results with part-time faculty. This increased focus and
attention supported assessment process.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to impr ove teaching and learning in the
area?
Request more discussion with students after completion of assessment. Ask faculty to make sure that discussion is captured.
Other comments about the assessment:
Faculty and students value the assessment process for this goal.
51
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes:
# Correct:10
9
8
7
110-82
110-83
110-85
110-86
0
5
0
0
4
1
10
12
3
1
0
0
0
3
1
2
6 or less Met
1
1
1
0
7
10
11
14
Total #
8
11
12
14
Number Met Assessment:
42
Total # assessed:
45
Percentage Met assessment: 93%
COM 110 Online Classes: 93% or 42 out of 45 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes:
# Correct:10
9
8
7
110-01
110-02
110-03
110-04
110-05
110-06
110-07
110-08
110-09
110-10
110-12
110-13
110-14
110-15
110-16
110-17
110-18
110-20
110-21
110-22
110-23
110-24
110-25
110-26
110-28
110-29
110-30
110-31
110-32
110-33
3
4
3
9
8
2
3
3
2
4
3
6
4
4
5
4
4
7
3
4
18
17
17
9
3
5
3
2
6
6
3
4
7
4
7
5
1
5
4
5
2
6
3
4
6
8
4
4
2
6
1
1
0
8
5
10
5
5
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
7
5
0
1
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
0
0
0
3
0
7
4
2
3
7
1
2
2
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
9
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
0
0
0
1
4
0
2
4
2
1
6 or less Met
8
9
7
3
0
4
2
1
3
3
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
7
2
0
0
0
3
4
1
1
1
0
5
10
13
15
19
19
10
7
17
13
13
15
17
16
14
17
17
14
17
11
14
19
18
17
21
12
22
14
13
13
17
Total #
18
22
22
22
19
14
9
18
16
16
17
19
16
15
18
17
14
19
18
16
19
18
17
24
16
23
15
14
13
22
52
110-34
110-35
110-36
110-40
110-41
110-42
110-44
110-45
110-46
110-50
110-51
110-52
110-90
3
5
1
1
5
8
4
4
3
0
5
3
4
5
5
1
4
6
2
2
6
4
3
5
3
7
2
2
5
3
3
1
3
5
2
4
2
1
2
4
2
4
2
3
0
0
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
8
4
1
0
0
2
5
5
3
1
5
14
14
11
10
17
11
9
18
12
8
14
8
15
615
15
16
19
14
18
11
9
20
17
13
17
9
20
724
Number Met Assessment:
615
Total # assessed:
724
Percentage Met assessment: 84.9%
COM 110 Face-to-Face Classes: 84.9% or 615 out of 724 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Number Met Assessment:
657
Total # assessed:
769
Percentage Met assessment: 85.4%
Overall 85.4% or 657 out of 769 students met the benchmark
53
B. SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Koochoi
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕ MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 135
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 122
The number in question 2 represents 89% of students meeting the benchmark.
54
What method of assessment did you use?
Students need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding through a written examination (cultural section). Administration in class
with instructor scoring was determined to be a better method for the scoring process and student’s participation. For the online classes,
students need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding through a written examination (cultural section) as well.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
For face to face classes: Written examination with 10 short answers (fill in the blank) based on authentic cultural readings. Word bank is
provided (some words will not be used).The total points for the assessment tool is 10 points. Each answer weights one point. The
assessment tool is from the test bank of the Spanish textbook students are using for a traditional class.
For online classes: Written examination with 10 short answers (multiple-choice) based on authentic cultural readings.The total points for
the assessment tool is 10 points. Each answer weights one point.
The same cultural assessment tool questions and answers are used in both instructional methods.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Face-to-face
Administration in class with instructor scoring was determined to be a better method for the scoring process and student’s participation.
The short answer item assessment ensures that the question is clear and there is a single, correct answer. It is also a better control
against guessing, which can be a major factor in student attempts. Fill-in-the-blanks assessments accurately measure student
knowledge.
Online
The aim of our online cultural awareness assessment tool was students' expectation to demonstrate understanding of, and extract
relevant specific information from cultural readings. Multiple-choice tests often require less time to administer for a given amount of
material than would tests requiring written responses. Multiple choice tests are the strongest predictors of overall student performance
compared with other forms of evaluations, especially by the use of online examination delivery software. Multiple-choice assessment
tool, in particular is graded by software, and therefore is not subject to human subjectivity or bias. Multiple-choice assessments
accurately measure student knowledge.
Overall
Students were expected to demonstrate understanding of, and extract relevant specific information from cultural readings using an
adequate assessment tool. Students are using a textbook just for a traditional method of instruction and another one for an online class.
We believe that the types of assessment we are using focus on identifying specific cultural points/topics that support cultutal awareness.
These types of assessment help focus and narrow a wide-ranging topic and identfy key cultural awareness ideas.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering the questions correctly content wise. We believe in both method of
instruction, students are gainning more cultural awareness based on the integration of more cultural activities. No differences were
seen between online and face-to-face classes.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
Students did not score higher on the examination because they did not demonstrate enough reading comprehension and understanding
skills. This means that the percentage of students who knew enough cultural points to meet the benchmark was higher than the reported
70%. No differences were seen between online and face-to-face classes.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
We learned that our students are gaining significant awareness of other cultures. Therefore, we can safely assume that the cultural
component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning outcomes.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Online students continued to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on online tasks and which are interactive, meaning that students
should aim at capturing the contextual and culturally embedded mediated nature of target language. The percentage of students who
met the goal is about the same from last year. Overall, Integrating more cultural activities and the cultural section on each test, the
percentage of students who met the goal has improved.
55
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
The faculty members will be asked to reinforce pre and post reading activities and to provide more activities on areas of culture which
were less known by students participating in this assessment tool.The primary advantage of using either (or both) strategies is that they
actively involve students in what they are reading and studying, enhancing both comprehension and appreciation of what is being read.
Training of new faculty members will emphasize these cultural aspects, as well. We believe that in both methods of instruction, students
are gaining more cultural awareness based on integration of more cultural activities offered in our courses.
Other comments about the assessment:
Students continue to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on tasks which are interactive, meaning that they should aim at capturing
the contextual and culturally embedded mediated nature of target language. Overall, our faculty thinks we are using the appropriate
assessment tools for each method of instruction course.
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
General Education Goal Area: Cultural Awareness / Foreign Languages (Spanish)
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
FACE TO FACE
GOAL: Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of some culture aspects.
OBJECTIVE: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for basic knowledge of culture aspects.
MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assessment tool.
After collecting data from seven Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections 01, 02, 04, 05, 36, 47, and 48 as of 2/10/12:
Number of students tested: 88
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 78
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 10
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 88.64%
SPA 112 Face-to-Face 88.64% or 78 out of 88 students met the benchmark
Grade Report (2011-2012):
Sect.01 Sect.02 Sect.04 Sect.05 Sect.36 Sect.47 Sect.48
90.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
60.00
70.00
60.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
90.00 90.00
100.00 100.00
80.00
100.00 90.00
100.00
90.00 100.00
90.00 70.00
100.00 100.00
90.00
100.00 40.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
100.00 90.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
80.00 80.00
100.00
50.00 100.00
90.00 100.00
90.00
70.00
70.00
80.00 20.00 100.00
80.00
70.00
80.00 90.00
80.00
90.00
50.00
56
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
50.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
90.00
60.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
96.88
90.00
75.00
86.43
80.00
80.00
8
16
15
10
14
11
14
0
0
0
Total
88
6
16
15
8
12
9
12
0
0
0
Total
78
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
Total
10
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 85.71% 81.82% 85.71% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
# total students tested:
88
# students who scored 70% or higher:
# students who scored less than 70%:
% students who met the goal:
=
88.64%
78
10
88.64%
General Education Goal Area: Cultural Awareness / Foreign Languages (Spanish)
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
ONLINE
GOAL: Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of some culture aspects.
OBJECTIVE: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for basic knowledge of culture aspects.
MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assessment tool.
After collecting data from three Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections , 84 (online), 85 (online) and 86(online) as of 2/10/12:
Number of students tested: 49
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 44
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 5
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 89.80%
SPA 112 Online 89.8% or 44 out of 49 students met the benchmark
Grade Report
2011-2012
Koochoi
Sect. 84 Sect. 85 Sect. 86
online online
online
70.00 80.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
90.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
57
Average
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
90.00
70.00
60.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
80.00
60.00
70.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
70.00
80.00
60.00
80.00
80.00
78.00
75.33
77.37
# tested per class: 15
15
19
Total: 49
# who scored 70
14
13
17
Total: 44
or higher
# who scored less
1
2
2
Total: 5
than 70%
# students who scored 70% or higher : 44
# students who scored less than 70% : 5
% students who met the goal:
The Cultural Awareness Goal was met.
89.80%
General Education Goal Area: Cultural Awareness / Foreign Languages (Spanish)
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
OVERALL
GOAL: Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of some culture aspects.
OBJECTIVE: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for basic knowledge of culture aspects.
MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assessment tool.
After collecting data from ten Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections 01, 02, 04, 05, 36, 47, 48, 84 (online), 85 (online) and 86
(online) as of 2/10/11:
Number of students tested: 137
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 122
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 15
58
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 89.05%
Overall 89.05% or 122 out of 137 students met the benchmark
Grade Report
Sect.01
OVERALL
Report 2011-2012
90.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
60.00
70.00
60.00
2/10/2011
Average
80.00
Sect.02 Sect.04 Sect.05 Sect.36 Sect.47 Sect.48 Sect. 84 Sect. 85 Sect. 86
online
online
online
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
95.88
90.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
90.00
70.00
40.00
90.00
80.00
100.00
20.00
90.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
50.00
70.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
86.43
# tested per
8
16
15
10
14
class:
# who scored 70% 6
16
15
8
12
or higher:
# who scored
2
0
0
2
2
less than 70%:
% who scored 75.00%: 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 85.71%
or higher
# total students tested:
137
# students who scored 70% or higher:
# students who scored less than 70%:
% students who met the goal:
=
100.00 80.00
90.00 100.0.0
100.00 90.00
90.00 90.00
70.00 80.00
50.00 100.00
70.00
70.00
80.00
70.00
90.00
50.00
50.00
60.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
90.00
70.00
60.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
80.00
60.00
70.00
60.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
70.00
80.00
60.00
80.00
80.00
78.00
75.33
77.37
11
14
9
15
15
Total 137
9
12
8
14
13
Total 122
2
2
1
1
2
81.82% 85.71% 93.33%
122
15
89.09%
Overall 86% of students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
85% of seated students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
59
Total
86.67% 89.47%
15
89.05%
92% of online students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
The College Goal for Cultural Awareness Was Met.
General Education Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Social Sciences
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the influence of the individual on group behavior and,
conversely, the influence of the group on the individual.
Objective: Seventy percent (70%) of students will score: 12 or better on the history essay and 2 or better on
the sociology review question.
The Behavioral and Social Sciences goal is offered in a large number of history, political science, sociology,
psychology, geography, anthropology and economics courses. Students may choose from an array of courses
in each area. For transfer requirements, students must choose a history class (HIS 131, 132, 111, or 112).
Students then choose 3 electives from discipline areas. Through an analysis of enrollment trends, it was found
that the majority of students select HIS 131 (American History I) and SOC 210 (Introduction to Sociology) to
fulfill their social science course requirements. PSY 150 (General Psychology) also captures a large number of
students; see the Critical Thinking section of this report for the assessment in PSY 150.
Enrollment in Behavioral and Social Science courses is substantial. Enrollment in Fall 2011 was as follows:
For HIS 131 and SOC 210
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
20
36
Number Enrolled
542
1,018
60
Course & Number
HIS 131
SOC 210
A. HIS 131 – American History I
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Wells
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕ Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 12 maximum value of 20
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 146
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 111
The number in question 2 represents 76% of students meeting the benchmark.
61
What method of assessment did you use?
A list of ten approved essay questions was given with instructions to each of the instructors chosen to participate in the Gen Ed
Assessment. The instructors were also given an approved rubric. The instructors were given directions to use the approved list of essay
questions and administer the assessment under testing conditions.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Essay Rubric – see attached copy
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment to ol?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
In order to eliminate idiosyncratic discrepancies, two evaluators scored the responses (with blind scoring) and the results were reviewed
as Set A and Set B. While there were noted discrepancies in instructor evaluation in the last assessment year, this cycle showed a
closer matching in instructor evalution of the assessments. Credit for this improvement points to better understanding of the rubric as a
grading tool and clarity in instructions for student expectations on the assessment.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
Face-to-face
Scores were less than last year's assessment, but still exceeded department minimums.
Online
Scores were considerably higher than last year's assessment.
Overall
Scores were equal to last year's assessment. Instructors continue to report that the ENG 111 pre-requisite has made a positive
difference in the student's ability to positively approach this written assessment. Many students continued to produce coherent,
analytical responses to essay topics and demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material presented in the course.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
While many students wrote effectively, weaknesses still remain for students who are less experienced with writing. No differences were
seen between online and face-to-face classes.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
There is no doubt that we have many capable and talented students, but we also have students who work well within specific guidelines
and expectations.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
We continue to see a mixture of abilities reflected in the assessments.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
See comments above regarding the rubric. We will continue to involve part-time instructors closely in the assessment process. We
would like to encourage instructor feedback and discussion on ways to ensure compliance both in instructions/guidelines to the students,
expectations from the students and the use of the grading rubric.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
The results of the assessment showed a slight decline in student response on the assessment from the previous year. However, the
assessments still do not adequately reflect students' performances in the history department as a whole. Reasons could still point to the
objective nature of the assessment process, although dual grading seems to be eliminating this issue on grader expectation. A fair
amount of flexibility is still involved in the decision by each instructor as to the actual implementation method of the assessment process.
Online
The results of the assessment showed a great improvement in student response on the assessment from the previous year. This data
more accurately reflects the performances in the history department as a whole. It should be noted that the instructors in Behavioral &
62
Social Science have completed a review in Online Pedagogy, which may or may not have influenced the increase in student scoring on
the assessment. It should also be noted that there were less sections of HIS 131 evaluated in the current cycle than in the previous
assessment year.
Overall
The results of the assessment remained at the same level as the previous year. However, the seated assessment still does not reflect
adequately the students' performances in the history department as a whole. As noted above, there was a great increase in online
student performance, although there was a decrease in the number of online students evaluated in this cycle.
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
See Attached Report.
Gen Ed Stats Fall 2011 - Final
20
20
19
19
19
19
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
15
15
14
13
20
20
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
13
w/ less than 12
points
TOTALS = 146
Passing (12+) = 111
Passing % = 76.0
19
19
17
16
16
14
14
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
9
8
6
3
2
2
17
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
1
15
12
11
10
10
9
8
7
6
20
20
20
20
19
17
17
16
15
14
14
14
14
14
Online
Total =
49
Passing (12+) = 43
Passing % = 87.8
63
Online
Online
Online
20
17
17
17
17
15
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
10
9
9
7
20
20
20
20
19
19
18
18
16
16
16
16
14
19
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
Seated
Total =
97
Passing (12+) = 68
Passing % = 70.1
Online
HIS 131 Online 87.8% or 43 out of 49 students met the benchmark
HIS 131 Face-to-Face 70.1% or 68 out of 97 students met the benchmark
Overall 76% or 111 out of 146 students met the benchmark
B. SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Felton
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 2 maximum value of 3
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 212
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 164
The number in question 2 represents 77% of students meeting the benchmark.
64
What method of assessment did you use?
Rubric Question
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Rubric with three points. Students are to respond to questions in a short answer essay format
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Ple ase note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Seated classes scores were not as high as online classes. Online classes included assessment as an exam question and all of the
seated classes with the exception of two were given as either extra credit or no credit given. Students were given the assessment and
asked to respond. Students who were doing well in the class also did well on the assessment.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
The students who scored two and above had a better understanding of what was being asked and contained reflection of their own
personal experiences. Some good examples were provided and related to sociological terms, concepts and definitions. Online students
did a much better job; their responses were more in depth than many of the seated students. The majority of the seated students who
scored two and above answers’ were shorter and students responded to the questions in a paragraph format.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
For both online and seated a major issue is with writing skills. Students do not have a basic understanding of how to organize an essay.
This is reflected in their ability to present the information in a way that clearly addresses the question that is being asked. Another
observation: students focused more on how society impacts the individual rather than giving examples of the relationship between the
individual and society.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Lack of college level writing skills and there should be a higher level English prerequisite for students taking these classes. Faculty also
expressed in their teaching of this information that more time should be spent on showing students how the individual relates to society.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
When assessments are required as part of an exam results are better. Faculty need to emphasis through examples as to how the
individual impacts society. This year it was not given as an extra credit assignment. By including the assessment as a part of the
syllabus the expectations are laid out and students know what to expect.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Faculty will meet to discuss method of delivery for students and instructions for completing the assessment. To be decided, should the
assessment be given as an assignment, on an exam, a take home exam or should it just be a question given in class. There should be a
consistency as to how the assessment is given and the weight placed on it by each instructor.
Other comments about the assessment:
General Education
SOCIOLOGY 210
FALL 2011
Assessment Question: A basic assumption of Sociology stresses the relationship between individuals and society.
Describe this relationship and provide an example of the interplay between self and society.
1 Point: Describe the relationship between the individual and society
1 Point: Demonstrates an ability to apply the concept through example(s) of the relationship between self and society
1 Point: The example(s) illustrate an understanding of the relationship between the individual and society
SEATED
ONLINE
65
N
Sec (01) N 39 of 52
Passed
28
% passed
72
N
Sec (86) N 22 of 26
Passed
21
% passed
95
Sec (06) N 26 of 27
18
69
Sec (87) N 15 of 25
15
100
Sec (08) N 14 of 25
9
64
Sec (89) N 18 of 27
17
94
Sec (07) N 22 of 27
12
55
Sec (91) N 17 of 24
13
76
Sec ( 11) N 22 of 26
16
73
Sec (32) N 17 of 26
15
88
66
92%
SEATED
N 140
98
70%
COMBINED
N 212
164
77%
ONLINE
N 72
N=Number graded in class
Overall 77% of students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
70% of seated students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
90% of online students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
The College Goal for Behavioral & Social Sciences Was Met.
.
66
General Education Goal Eight: Natural Sciences
Goal: Students will demonstrate knowledge of the scientific method, the central tool for all scientific endeavors.
This goal was measured in BIO 110, the science class with the largest enrollment. Enrollment for Fall 2011 was
as follows:
Term
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
23
Number Enrolled
537
Course & Number
BIO 110
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Spring
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
67
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70% maximum value of 100%
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 172
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 161
The number in question 2 represents 94% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
All sciences use the scientific method as the central tool for undertaking any scientific work. Students should have a minimal level of
competence in recognizing and using the scientific method. The assessment tool presents a scientific experiment and asks the students
to both recognize and use the scientific method to answer a series of multiple choice questions. The assessment takes place during the
final exam period for randomly selected sections of BIO 110.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
The tool was a 10 question Multiple Choice Test. A scenario was given to students that required them to design an experiment using the
Scientific Method. In using a ‘story problem’ scenario, students are encouraged to ‘role play’ to help them answer the questions of this
10 question multiple choice test.
One of the positive aspects of a multiple choice test is that the students are only required to recognize the steps of the Scientific Method
rather than have a thorough working knowledge of the steps. The negative aspect of the test is that the student cannot defend his/her
thought process as they decide what they would do in setting up the experiment.
In choosing a multiple choice test, there is one correct answer. If the student understands part of the answer, there is no partial credit for
the student. On the other hand, if the tool was designed for students to write out an answer, this may create more stress or anxiety for
some students. If they are not sure where to start, they might give up before they even started.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
Faculty members were pleased with the outcome. Overall, the percentage of students that passed with 70% or higher was the same for
both Online and Face-to-Face students, but we found that the percentage of students scoring 100% correct was higher with Face-toFace students (23%) compared to Online students (10%). The online students had more difficulty with 3 particular questions on the test
than the face to face students. The questions that seemed to give them the most trouble were related to vocabulary. Knowing what
“experimental group” meant, what “qualitative” vs. “quantitative” meant. There was less understanding of “prove” hypothesis vs. a
“promising” hypothesis with online students.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face-to-face
classes, if applicable)
Students were able to recognize and use the steps of the Scientific Method, in overall performance, equally well for online and face-toface.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
Students had the most trouble understanding what a hypothesis is. Question #1 on assessment tool revealed a 44% student error.
Online students had more trouble with scientific terminology (Questions #2 and 4 on assessment tool) than the face-to face students.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Students had trouble understanding some vocabulary, but overall they did well in learning the steps in the Scientific Method.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
N/A
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Faculty will need to continue to work with building student’s vocabulary and understanding what a “proof” is vs. conclusions from a
68
scientific experiment.
Other comments about the assessment:
Faculty will adjust the wording on some of the questions on the tool to make them clearer for students.
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes:
Total of 49 students were tested in 3 online sections of Bio 110.
Scores
<70%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% 70+
ONLINE
Sec 04
Sec 02
Sec 05
1
1
2
5
3
2
4
4
4
5
6
7
1
2
2
94%
94%
88%
BIO 110 Online Classes: 92% or 45 out of 49 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Total of 124 students were tested in 7 sections of Bio 110.
Scores
<70%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FACE-TO-FACE
Sec61 Sec11 Sec12 Sec13 Sec31 Sec33 Sec21
11
0
0
0
4
5
14
11
7
8
0
4
0
33
22
7
0
42
25
14
19
44
47
25
50
42
64
24
11
40
67
8
25
18
10
% 70+
88%
100%
100%
100%
96%
95%
86%
BIO 110 Face-to-Face Classes: 94% or 116 out of 124 students met the benchmark
Overall results: Total # of students: 173
Total # of online students = 49. Total # of face-to-face students = 124
Percentage
Scores
Online
F-t-F
Combined
28
72
<70%
8
5.6
6.4
70%
20.8
9.7
12.8
80%
25
18.5
20
90%
37.5
41.9
41
100%
70%+
10
93%
23
93%
19.8
93.60%
69
The College Goal for Natural Sciences Was Met.
General Education Goal Nine: Humanities/Fine Arts
Goal: Students will demonstrate knowledge of the humanities and critical skills in assessing cultural/artistic
merit and significance.
Students may select from a range of courses for Humanities/Fine Arts requirements including Art, Music,
Drama, Literature and Humanities. Through an analysis of enrollment trends, it was found that the majority of
students select ART 111 (Art Appreciation), MUS 110 (Music Appreciation) and HUM 130 (Myth in Human
Culture).
Objective:
At least 70% of students will score a 70% or higher on ART111; 70% will score 70% or higher
on MUS 110; 70% will score 3 of 5 on HUM 130 assessment.
Enrollments for the fall 2009 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Number of Sections
12
25
6
Number Enrolled
339
793
160
70
Course & Number
ART 111
MUS 110
HUM 130
A. ART 111 – Art Appreciation
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Jacobs
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕ Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕ Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 152
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 142
The number in question 2 represents 93% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Students completed a Virtual Exhibit via powerpoint , including a thematic statement .
71
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Students were provided the following rubric:1. Identify a thoughtful theme for your exhibit. The ideas for themes of the exhibit are
limitless. Use your own interests and creativity to find a possible theme for your show.
1. Research and identify at least 10 works of art for your exhibit. You must include artwork by at least 2 different artists and 2 different
media in your exhibit. Use the internet, museum websites, your book, books in the library, or galleries. The 10 artworks do not have to
be artworks that you have seen in person. For example, if you want to include the “Mona Lisa” in an exhibit about portraits, the Louvre
will graciously lend you this priceless work of art.
1. For each of the 10 artworks, provide the following in label format: (40 points total). These can be provided with the images or in a
separate numbered list.
Title of artwork (1 point)
Artist (1 point)
Date of artwork (1 point)
Media (1 point)
1. Write a catalogue essay that explains your choice in theme and why you picked these 10 artworks to go together. Essay should be at
least 500 words, nicely organized, and in complete and correct sentences. You must investigate the WHY of putting together these
images. Is there a connection between a certain formal element? Do they all use light in a certain way, use the same color, have the
same style, etc.? How do your images explore your theme? What can the visitor to your exhibit learn or take away from seeing the
artworks? (60 points total)
For essay scoring purposes:
Introduction paragraph (5 points)
Three to four body paragraphs making the argument for your theme including information on your choices (15 points)
Referring specifically to at least 4 artworks in your exhibit with supporting details and explanations of how these works relate to your
theme (20 points)
Using correct grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, no misspellings, etc. (5 points)
Bibliography of at least 2 sources other than your book. (5 points)
Creativity of overall theme and presentation (10 points)
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
This assessment is a valuable tool in perceiving how much cultural awareness students can convey. Performance is consistent in both
online and face-to-face classes.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
When students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far more engaged in the project.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and faceto-face classes, if applicable)
Students continue to be weak regarding citation methods, particularly when to cite.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
It reinforced the idea that when students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far more engaged in the project.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
We stressed proper citation of media, though this continues to be an issue.
72
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
We will continue to fine tune the assessment.
Other comments about the assessment:
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes
Section
90-100
80-89
70-79
85
11
4
1
86
10
6
1
87
14
88
11
1
totals
46
11
60-69
50-59
Below 50
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
ART 111 Online 92% or 59 out of 64 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Section
90-100
80-89
70-79
1
13
5
2
2
13
3
5
10
3
1
6
13
1
1
41
8
12
57
24
totals
60-69
50-59
Below 50
2
2
2
0
2
ART 111 Face-to-Face 95% or 83 out of 87 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Section
90-100
80-89
70-79
60-69
1
13
5
2
2
13
3
5
10
3
1
6
13
1
1
41
8
12
85
11
4
1
86
10
6
1
87
14
88
11
50-59
Below 50
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
73
totals
103
35
4
5
1
4
Overall 93% or 142 out of 152 students met the benchmark
B. MUS 110 – Music Appreciation
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Maurer
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 203
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 147
The number in question 2 represents 72.4% of students meeting the benchmark.
74
What method of assessment did you use?
10 questions chosen by faculty to show basic knowledge of musical terms, styles and historical significance of music. Assessment
administered at the end of the semester in both face-to-face and on-line settings.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
See attached 10 question multiple choice test.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note differences in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
The assessment is seen as appropriate for both on-line and traditional classroom sections as well as appropriate for multiple instructors
with different teaching styles and content emphasis.
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face -to-face
classes, if applicable)
In both the on-line and traditional classes students scored best on material from the latter half of the course; including material about
more well-known composers. Faculty believes that this material is freshest and contains at least some material that is in the general
knowledge of some of our students. Again this year, on-line classes scored better with 81.25% meeting the goal in contrast to 69% of
face-to-face classes. This is the first year that face-to-face sections have not met the goal. In evaluating the results it was clear that one
section in particular scored poorly with only 47.6% of students meeting the goal. This instructor is no longer teaching music appreciation
and this difference in scores may be mitigated next year.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences between online and face to-face classes, if applicable)
In both the on-line and traditional classes students had most difficulty with material presented at the beginning of the semester,
especially musical terms presented in the very first part of the course. Faculty discussed the possibility that students who do not attend
during the first week of class may be missing this material. (late registrations as well as non-attendance) It could also be that since the
assessment is cumulative, students have forgotten earlier material. Faculty believes that the setting in which the student takes the
assessment can influence scores as on-line students have access to the text.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Retention of material continues to be an issue, but more importantly student’s mastery of musical terms is weak.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
This is the second year that the classes have been assessed since the department adopted a textbook with an on-line platform for
homework and tests. The overall performance has remained virtually unchanged (73% met the goal last year)
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
It was recommended that teachers reference and reinforce musical terms throughout the semester.
Other comments about the assessment:
Faculty discussed standardizing the way the test is administered with all students taking the test on Blackboard. No decision has been
made at this time.
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes
48 students in sections 85, 86, 87 and 88 were assessed with 39 students or 81.25% meeting the benchmark.
On-Line Classes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Section 86
4
4
3
3
Section 88
3
4
2
1
1
Section 85&87*
4
3
6
2
7
75
Total
14
*data from sections 85 and 87 were combined
11
1
Results for face-to-face classes;
155 students in sections 1,2,3,7, 31, and 61 were assessed with 108 students or 69.03% meeting the benchmark.
Face-to-face
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 7
Section 31
100%
3
1
1
2
2
90%
4
7
8
3
2
1
80%
8
9
8
7
6
2
70%
6
5
8
4
3
8
60%
4
7
10
2
50%
1
4
2
3
40%
2
1
3
1
20%
Total
Section 61
6
1
21
34
41
18
13
Overall results:
A total of 203 students were assessed with 147 or 72.41% meeting the benchmark.
76
21
C. HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2011-2012
Last name of person completing report: Di Donato
Name of Department:
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Mathematics
⎕Communication
⎕ English, Reading & Humanities
⎕Fine Arts
⎕Library
⎕Music
⎕Art
⎕Foreign Languages
⎕Information Technology
⎕Economics
⎕Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
⎕Reading
⎕Written Communication
⎕Oral Communication
⎕Mathematics
⎕Computer Skills
⎕Information Literacy
⎕Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
⎕Cultural Awareness
⎕Social/Behavioral Sciences
⎕Natural Sciences
⎕Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
⎕ART 111
⎕BIO 110
⎕COM 110
⎕COM 231
⎕ECO 251
⎕ENG 111
⎕ENG 112
⎕HIS 131
⎕ HUM 130
⎕MUS 110
⎕PSY 150
⎕RED 090
⎕SOC 210
⎕SPA 112
⎕COM 110 & COM 231
⎕MAT 115 & MAT 161
⎕CIS 110 & CIS 111
⎕Library classes
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 3 maximum value of 5
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 139
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 92
The number in question 2 represents 66% of students meeting the benchmark.
77
What method of assessment did you use?
Essay Question administered towards the end of the semester and scored as a portion of the student's overall grade. In the Fall of 2010,
5 sections of Hum 130 were selected for assessment. Grading of the sections was done by four instructors in the English, Reading, and
Humanities Division, specifically those instructors who have taught the Hum 130 course. When there was a discrepancy between two
graders concerning whether a student passed or failed (e.g., between a 2 and a 3 = 2.5), a third grader juried the score.
What tool did you use (rubric, etc.)?
Essay Question:
The term “myth” comes from the Greek word mythos, which means “story.” We commonly perceive myths to be “untrue”; however, a
myth performs many vital functions in a society that believes it, and for that society the myth contains “truth.”
During this semester we have discussed various theories of how a myth functions in a society: including the natural, etiological,
cosmological, psychological, sociological, linguistic, mystical, and pedagogical. We have discussed most of these functions, but not all
of them.
First, pick a story that you really enjoyed this semester. Analyze it as to how it probably functioned in the society that believed it was
true. Discuss this function, and show how this myth contains this function.
Second, analyze your myth in terms of the values it contains for the society that believed it. Discuss at least one value at length.
For Example: Let’s say I enjoyed the myth of Demeter and Persephone and how it relates to the natural world. I can then discuss how
this myth functions. Obviously, the best function is the Nature-Myth, also called the natural function, which explains some aspect of the
natural world. I will discuss how the Demeter-Persephone myth explains the changing of the seasons. As for the values the story
contains, I can discuss what it tells the society about death, and I can explain how the story reflects the marriage customs of the ancient
Greeks, where the father selects the husband for his daughter.
You will write a thoughtful paper in which you explore both the function and values of the story. Do not simply retell the story, but do use
examples from the story to support your point.
You can include research in your paper, but you are not required to have it. This paper is designed to show me what you have learned
in class by analyzing a myth.
Rubric:
5 – the student’s response clearly describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response further provides an example of a
specific myth that shows a clear understanding of a “truth” for a culture. The response is clearly organized and well written.
4 – the student’s response describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response further provides an example of a specific
myth that shows some understanding of a “truth” for a culture. The response is clearly organized and well written
3 – the student’s response describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response further provides an example of a specific
myth that shows a minimal understanding of a “truth” for a culture. The response may be poorly organized and poorly written
2 – the student’s response inadequately describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response may provide an example
but shows a poor understanding of the “truth” of a particular culture. The response is poorly organized and poorly written.
1 – the student’s response does not describe a function of a myth in a particular culture. The example, if provided, does not show an
understanding of the “truth” for a culture. The response is poorly organized and poorly written.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?(Please note difference s in
online and face-to-face classes, if applicable)
The faculty believes the assessment tool is equally well suited for both traditional and online testing.
The Humanities Faculty continues to view the current assessment question (revised Fall 2008) as an improvement over the previous
version with respect to clarifying department expectations of the students. Feedback has indicated strong approval for the tool’s design,
and that the faculty is pleased with its ability to address the essential relationships between myth and culture. The responses gathered
this year have not caused us to question the tool’s design or usefulness in assessing student understanding. Students scoring at the
high end of the spectrum clearly understand what is being asked of them, and have demonstrated the ability to elaborate on the course
material.
Additionally, some faculty members continue to believe the assignment valuable enough to include as a regular part of their course
requirements.
78
What student strengths were observed? (Please note differences in online and face-to-face
classes, if applicable)
There was a noticeable difference in student performance between online and traditional students this year. Some online classes
performed better than others, but all of them outperformed the traditional sections. However, there was no noticeable difference in essay
content between the highest scoring students in either the online or traditional sections, so the department agrees that the concepts of
interest are being communicated in both.
Most students showed a strong understanding of the cultural issues addressed by the myths discussed over the course of the semester.
Even students who failed to communicate a clear understanding of a function of myth were able to identify some culturally significant
elements in the traditional stories, particularly a general understanding of sociological and cosmological function. The most significant
observation was that discussion of the sociological function overshadowed discussion of any other function, and possibly all other
functions. This trend seems to have been developing over a period of several years. Last year the faculty noted an increase in the
number of assessments that discussed the sociological aspects of myth, but this is the first year allegorical/cosmological discussions
have not predominated.
What student weaknesses were observed? (Please note differences be tween online and faceto-face classes, if applicable)
There was a noticeable difference in student performance between traditional and online classes, the traditional sections scoring far
below those online, with a full 20 percentage point difference in passing grades.
Online performance is consistent with that of years past.
A continuing concern is that some students seem to have difficulty distinguishing mere plot summaries from the more substantial
analysis the assessment seeks to elicit. This same weaknesses, observed in the past, remains a pressing issue. Those students who
fell below the minimum passing score continue to ignore the required analysis, presenting plot summaries and failing to clearly
distinguish a function from a message. Most disturbing was the fact that a larger percentage of this year’s students fell within this failing
range.
As in the past, the most prominent weakness evident in the assessments was student inability to organize and communicate their
thoughts. Though a fair understanding of the issue in question could be gathered from many essays, it was often difficult to identify in a
single reading. This problem can be the result of a lack of clarity in thinking through the material, but is more likely due to student ability
in the area of composition.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
The students may need some additional help in understanding how to think through the essay writing process, such as how to address
each point required, and how to organize their answers into a coherent presentation.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
See above and below.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Instructors seek to provide a wide selection of mythic traditions in order to expose the students to as many historical cultures as
possible, while seeking to provide clear discussion that will result in an understanding of the inherent unity of myth. In addition to
modifying story selection, the department will continue to place greater emphasis on aspects of myth interpretation that students have
overlooked in responding to the Gen Ed assessment in the past. Experimentation with new text books that place a greater emphasis on
myth theory and interpretation have not produced favorable results, most likely due to the more complex nature of the discussion being
presented. Students seemed to struggle with the more difficult content. The faculty plans on reviewing this year’s results, with the goal of
developing more effective strategies for emphasizing function over the entirety of the semester.
The department may try to develop a tool geared to walking students through the essay writing process, and test it early in the fall to see
if it better prepares students for the coming assessment.
Other comments about the assessment:
The department has noted an improvement in online student participation in the Gen Ed Assessment over previous years. Efforts to
standardize how the assessment would be handled as part of the course grade have resulted in a significantly higher response rate.
79
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
48 students in sections 85, 86, 87 and 88 were assessed with 39 students or 81.25% meeting the benchmark.
On-Line Classes Section 86
Section 88
100% 4
3
4
90%
4
4
3
80%
3
2
6
70%
3
1
2
60%
1
7
50%
Total
14
11
1
*data from sections 85 and 87 were combined
Section 85&87*
Results for face-to-face classes;
155 students in sections 1,2,3,7, 31, and 61 were assessed with 108 students or 69.03% meeting the benchmark.
Face-to-face
100% 3
90%
4
80%
8
70%
6
60%
4
50%
1
40%
2
20%
Total
21
Section 1
1
1
7
8
9
8
5
8
7
10
4
2
1
3
1
34
41
Section 2
2
2
3
2
7
6
4
3
2
Section 3
18
21
13
Section 7
Section 31
Section 61
1
2
8
6
3
1
Overall results:
A total of 203 students were assessed with 147 or 72.41% meeting the benchmark.
Overall 77% of students met the Fine Arts benchmark
75% of seated students met the Fine Arts benchmark
81% of online students met the Fine Arts benchmark
The College Goal for Fine Arts Was Met.
80
General Education Goal Ten: Information Literacy
Goal: Students will effectively use research techniques to identify, select, use, document and evaluate information sources
appropriate to a particular need.
Reporting for General Education Results
Last name of person completing report: Payton
Name of Department:
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Mathematics
Communication
English, Reading & Humanities
Fine Arts
Library
Music
Art
Foreign Languages
Information Technology
Economics
Goal Measured:
Reading
Written Communication
Oral Communication
Mathematics
Computer Skills
Information Literacy
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Cultural Awareness
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Natural Sciences
Humanities/Fine Arts
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
ART 111
BIO 110
COM 110
COM 231
ECO 251
ENG 111
ENG 112
HIS 131
HUM 130
MUS 110
PSY 150
RED 090
SOC 210
SPA 112
COM 110 & COM 231
MAT 115 & MAT 161
CIS 110 & CIS 111
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 7 maximum value of 10
Please fill in the following information:
1.
2.
3.
Number of students evaluated or assessed: 173
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 128
The number in question 2 represents 74% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
After Information Literacy was officially accepted as an assessment measure for the General Education committee, the librarians created
a tutorial with a 10-question quiz to be embedded in Blackboard via ENG 111 courses. In Spring 2012, 5 English faculty agreed to pilot
this assessment in their online ENG 111 Blackboard modules.
81
What tool did you use?
The library embedded a 10-question quiz into the piloted ENG 111 sections based on an online tutorial created by the former eLearning
librarian back in Fall 2011. Each question was worth 1 point, so a student had a chance to get 10 maximum points on the quiz. The
assessments were scored by blackboard and students were assigned an anonymous number. The results were then compiled by the
eLearning librarian and sent to the Head of Instruction for review.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Using an informal evaluation process, the Head of Instruction emailed the participating pilot faculty to see what they liked and didn't like
about the assessment. The response to the tool was overwhelmingly positive. One instructor said between the online assessment and
the (optional, based on faculty request) in-person library research class, he felt the students were getting a broad knowledge of
information literacy concepts, that "all the bases were covered."
The librarians who assisted with creating this tool and assessment were pleased to use a different assessment measure based on the
problems with the prior tool, a 5-question quiz with objective and short-answer questions used at the end of the one-shot in-class library
session. This current tool assesses students on the same information, regardless of what was covered in class, something the prior tool
(due to information literacy being assessed in one-shot library research classes prior to 2012) was unable to accomplish.
What student strengths were observed?
Students understood the concept of keywords and synonyms to use when searching and the issue of what materials were appropriate
for which type of research needed (for example, books are better for historical issues in context; academic journals are more appropriate
for in-depth research; magazines are appropriate for current, breaking information);
What student weaknesses were observed?
Citations are still a challenge for students: what the parts are, what a particular style looks like (like MLA or APA), and why they are
important. Also, the criteria needed to evaluate what they find on the web continues to be problematic. Information keeps changing,
and students aren't quite sure what the best or most appropriate source is to find their topics.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
The librarians learned that students do not have an accurate expectation of the rigors of college-level research. From the librarian's
instructional experience, students seem to be used to reporting information, rather than using critical thinking skills to discern or
assimilate information from their sources into their own perspective or argument, as required for the assignment. The requirements of
the assignment and the faculty member's role in guiding students through their research assignment has a significant impact on
student's motivation to fully engage with the research process.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
This assessment method was completely different from last year's information literacy assessment, so it is difficult to compare the two
methods. During this upcoming year, the support of ENG faculty will be of utmost importance--if they do not encourage (or require)
students to take the assessment in their online module, students will not be assessed. It has to be mandatory. With prior information
literacy assessments administered by librarians, librarians had more control of who and when students would be assessed (usually at
the end of a one-shot library class). One of the most important things librarians learned was how necessary it is for all students to be
assessed from the same knowledge base, something that was near impossible to do in one-shot library instruction classes where
different material was covered depending on the class material, the teacher, and the librarian. The librarians still believe information
literacy should be assessed more than from a 10-minute tutorial, but this is a start in the right direction.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and learning in the
area?
Since this was a pilot, the librarians are interested in seeing the assessment results on a larger scale among a variety of instructors:
part-time and full-time. This assessment is only worthwhile if required by the instructor, so we will have to figure out a way to make this
quiz an important part of the class's other assessments. The quiz questions have been tweaked so to be a more reliable indicator of
what the students are learning. And frankly, with the tweaking we may find the objective quiz questions too easy for the majority of our
students and find ways to challenge the students more with more difficult questions.
Our original plan was to assess both the quiz questions AND a sample of papers chosen from their last writing assignment, which was to
include research elements. We would create a rubric and assess how the students integrated research sources into a research paper.
Ultimately we decided to focus only on the objective assessment tool, which will be easier to assess when this is launched with all ENG
111 sections in Fall 2012. We did not want to overshoot our goal of being able to reasonably assess the students we had, and as this is
our first attempt at a course-wide assessment, it was best to not try to accomplish more than we could handle as a librarian staff.
Last year the librarians pledged to more pro-actively partner with faculty to develop research assignments and have a more meaningful
assessment tool. That goal became this mandatory information literacy goal, something the library is very proud to be a part of. The
librarians are teaching as many one-shot classes as they ever have, and are embedded in semester-long online classes as "Your
Librarian" partners with faculty.
The instruction librarians plan on employing several strategies over the next year to improve the teaching and learning of information
82
literacy. The librarians plan on more pro-actively partnering with faculty in the development of research assignments. An effort will be
made to move away from "one-shot" library instruction classes (in which students come to the library for one instruction session on
library resources/research) towards more frequent interaction, with librarians available to students throughout the semester. Essentially,
the librarians would like to follow more of a 'teaching assistant' model rather than the 'guest lecturer' model. The library will also be
making changes to the instruction request menu to facilitate better develoment of the actual library instruction session.
Other comments about the assessment:
With this being a pilot, a lot of things were completely new to the librarians who created the assessment: the tutorial, the quiz, the
method of assessment, and the lack of control in how the assessment would be administered. After looking at the pilot, it was
determined that changes needed to be made to the quiz questions (some of them were slightly confusing, or didn't have the same
number of options--the expectation for options is 4, and some questions had 3). The pilot was introduced to identify what worked and
what didn't, and what changes still need to be made. Overall, the library is very satisfied with the fact that information literacy is a formal
goal in the General Education assessment, and believe the data gathered from these assessments will shape how information literacy
will change and grow in the coming years.
Please add your data below:
Information Literacy Assessments
Spring 2012
Online: 173 students assessed in 5 sections
Class # of students
Avg Score
ENG 111-18
21
7.9
ENG 111-WGL1 42
7.5
ENG 111-73
14
6.1
ENG 111-KPK1 67
7.3
ENG 111-58
24
6.5
The College Goal for Information Literacy Was Met.
83
APPENDIX
DATA SUMMARIES
Rubrics are on file with Planning and Research
84
Goal One: Reading
Assessment Data for Reading Based on Percentage of Score on the Final Exam for 2011
Assessment Data for Reading Based on Percentage of Score on the Final Exam for 2011
Traditional Sections Online Sections Hybrid Section
04 05 16 30 33
89 84
82
92 92 96
71 84
66
94 88 95
74 75
82
88 87 81
65 68
78
89 91 83
96 79
71
90 83 89
90 70
77
86 80 67
94 71
88
80 86 75
96 72
66
84 94 67
90 76
89
86 91 92
90 48
83
93 88 71
84 56
86
76 90 79
89 56
64
86 83 73
74 32
79
90 91 88
90 73
81
94 87 83
94 60
92
88 85 91
86
78
84 96 68
88
95
78 73 95
80
83
83
76
75
75
90
88
80
91
82
89
86
85
Traditional Classes: 93% or 40 out of 43 students met the benchmark
Online Classes: 75% or 24 out of 32 students met the benchmark
Hybrid Class: 88% or 15 out of 18 students met the benchmark
Rubric on file with Planning and Research
86
GOAL TWO: COMMUNICATION
A. Oral Communication
Assessed in COM 110 and COM 231
Oral Communication – COM 110 Introduction to Communication &
COM 231 Public Speaking
Results for online classes
Oral Communication - Distance Classes
Scored Scored Scored
5
4
3
COM 231-06 &
07
2
4
5
COM 231-08
0
0
8
COM 231-09
1
3
4
Total scoring 3
or better
Scored
1 or 2
Total
Assessed
11
8
8
2
0
0
13
8
8
COM 110-18
COM 110-19
1
2
3
6
2
1
6
9
0
3
6
12
Totals
6
16
20
42
5
47
Total scoring 3
or better
6
7
3
7
5
4
Scored
1 or 2
0
1
4
0
1
3
4
6
9
8
7
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
Results for face-to-face classes;
Oral Communication - ON campus classes
Scored Scored Scored
5
4
3
COM 231 -01
0
2
4
COM 231-02
0
4
3
COM 231-03
0
0
3
COM 231-04
0
4
3
COM 231-05
1
1
3
COM 231-10
3
1
0
COM 110-11
COM 110--12
COM 110-13
COM 110-14
COM 110-15
COM 110-16
0
0
2
0
3
0
1
2
6
0
3
3
3
4
1
8
1
5
87
Total
Assessed
6
8
7
7
6
7
5
7
9
8
7
8
89.30%
COM 110-17
Totals
9
3
4
7
0
7
30
42
81
11
92
Scored
3
4
3
3
3
3
0
5
8
4
Total scoring 3
or better
6
7
3
7
5
4
11
8
8
Scored
1 or 2
0
1
4
0
1
3
2
0
0
Total
Assessed
6
8
7
7
6
7
13
8
8
88%
Overall results:
Oral Communication - Overall Results
Scored Scored
5
4
COM 231 -01
0
2
COM 231-02
0
4
COM 231-03
0
0
COM 231-04
0
4
COM 231-05
1
1
COM 231-10
3
1
COM 231-06 & 07
2
4
COM 231-08
0
0
COM 231-09
1
3
COM 110-11
COM 110--12
COM 110-13
COM 110-14
COM 110-15
COM 110-16
COM 110-17
COM 110-18
COM 110-19
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
1
2
1
2
6
0
3
3
3
3
6
3
4
1
8
1
5
4
2
1
4
6
9
8
7
8
7
6
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
7
9
8
7
8
7
6
12
Totals
15
46
62
123
16
139
88
88.40%
B. Written Communication
Written Communication 2011-2012
Results for online classes
Met Standard % Met
Total
Standard
14
11
Overall online
Total
Met
79
12
10
83%
11
10
91%
37
Results for face-to-face classes;
Met Standard
Total
Standard
% Met
Total
14
12
86%
20
15
75%
17
15
88%
16
13
81%
20
16
80%
Met Standard
Standard
124
% Met
102
82%
89
31
Met
87
Overall results:
Total
%
84%
%
71
82%
Goal Three: Mathematics
Raw Data - Math Goals – 2011/2012
MAT161
Results for online classes:
Section (Coded)
Number of Students
Mastered Goal 1
Mastered Goal 2
Mastered Goal 3
Mastered All Goals
Online
13
12
12
9
8
2
22
22
22
21
21
3
28
27
25
27
24
4
23
21
21
21
18
5
23
20
22
22
20
MAT 161 Online Classes: 84% or 91 out of 109 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes:
Section (Coded)
6
Number of Students
20
Mastered Goal 1
20
Mastered Goal 2 19
19
Mastered Goal 3
18
Mastered All Goals
17
7
17
15
14
15
11
8
27
23
22
26
19
9
25
24
22
23
20
10
23
18
17
21
16
MAT 161 Face-to-Face Classes: 74% or 83 out of 112 students met the benchmark
MAT115
Results for online classes:
Section (Coded)
Online
Number of Students
17
Mastered Goal 1
16
Mastered Goal 2
15
Mastered Goal 3
13
Mastered All Goals
10
Online
18
14
17
14
11
3
27
26
25
23
21
4
27
27
25
25
23
5
20
17
19
18
15
MAT 115 Online Classes: 73% or 80 out of 109 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes:
Section (Coded)
6
Number of Students
15
Mastered Goal 1
13
Mastered Goal 2 19
15
Mastered Goal 3
11
Mastered All Goals
10
7
12
10
10
10
8
8
29
29
28
27
26
9
25
23
25
25
23
MAT 115 Face-to-Face Classes: 83% or 67 out of 81 students met the benchmark
Merged data= 411
Number who met all three goal areas: 321 or 78% met all three goals.
90
Goal Four: Computer Skills
A.
20112012
data
For Fall 2011 At End-Of-Term
Class
CIS1100
1
CIS1100
7
CIS1102
3
CIS1102
6
CIS1105
1
CIS1105
6
CIS1106
0
CIS1108
1
CIS1108
4
CIS1108
6
CIS1110
1
CIS1110
9
CIS1111
7
CIS1113
0
CIS1114
1
CIS1115
5
CIS1116
2011-3 Fall
A
B
C
All
D
F
W
Otr
21
2
2
.
1
1
.
27
11
4
5
2
5
.
.
27
17
2
1
2
3
2
.
27
10
7
2
2
4
2
.
27
9
5
.
2
2
2
.
20
8
7
.
1
5
3
.
24
9
12
1
.
5
.
.
27
12
4
4
1
3
1
.
25
18
4
1
5
6
.
.
34
22
2
4
1
4
1
1
35
6
8
5
.
6
1
.
26
11
6
1
1
5
1
.
25
19
1
.
.
.
1
.
21
15
4
2
.
2
1
.
24
10
5
.
2
2
4
.
23
12
16
6
3
1
.
.
1
3
1
1
3
.
1
23
25
91
6
CIS1118
2
CIS1118
3
All
12
7
4
3
7
2
.
35
15
10
.
.
8
.
.
253
99
33
23
72
26
2
33
50
8
B.
CIS110-01
CIS110-07
CIS110-23
Computer
Skills
Score-100
pts
Word
Skills
exam
-50 pts.
Conversion
Avg.
Computer
Skills
Score-100
pts
Word Skills
exam
-50 pts.
Computer
Skills
Score-100
pts
90
45
90
90
88
39
78
83
92
48
96
94
84
43
86
85
100
50
39
78
39
94
43
86
76
49
98
87
66
30
60
63
92
42
84
88
31
62
75
76
40
80
78
98
45
90
90
0
0
45
80
36
72
76
78
40
80
92
22
44
68
62
39
78
70
84
43
86
68
48
96
82
78
0
39
84
45
90
88
36
72
80
78
35
70
74
92
45
90
70
38
76
73
92
36
72
82
84
48
96
94
43
86
90
6
33
66
36
78
30
60
88
37
74
81
82
43
86
84
92
48
96
90
36
72
81
0
0
98
37
74
88
78
42
42
84
84
86
81
52
92
46
93
90
42
84
84
##
100
40
94
Conversion
26
46
92
Avg.
92
Word
Skills
exam
-50 pts.
38
Conversion
76
0
68
42
84
76
70
92
45
90
91
0
96
45
90
93
100
49
98
80
42
76
92
42
36
0
35
84
15
30
15
78
100
40
80
90
88
43
86
99
78
33
66
72
86
40
80
84
82
74
32
64
69
96
41
82
46
92
84
80
31
62
71
84
41
82
60
38
76
68
80
35
70
75
86
43
86
82
42
84
83
94
40
80
87
92
46
92
94
94
74
88
47
40
37
38
94
80
74
76
94
87
74
82
86
84
84
86
40
30
38
80
60
76
0
83
72
80
43
96
92
70
38
39
35
76
78
70
82
72
33
66
69
Average
Average
72
0
Average
65
100%
Count total
Count under
70
26
###
1
Count total
29
Count under 70
CIS110-81
Word
Skills
exam
-50 pts.
Conversion
Avg.
98
80
100
92
98
72
94
90
40
20
46
37
46
29
43
40
80
40
92
74
92
58
86
80
89
60
96
83
95
65
90
85
CIS110-86
Computer
Skills
Score-100
pts
Word Skills
exam
-50 pts.
36
88
90
37
46
37
90
43
40
39
38
66
Count under 70
1
CIS110-84
Computer
Skills
Score-100
pts
Count total
Conversion
74
92
74
0
86
80
78
76
93
Avg.
Computer
Skills
Score-100
pts
Word
Skills
exam
-50 pts.
55
90
82
0
88
40
72
38
80
88
96
86
82
88
82
82
39
42
45
36
44
41
40
38
Conversion
78
84
90
72
88
82
80
76
82
88
88
84
92
78
74
70
88
92
84
94
84
78
70
88
41
34
35
48
47
41
34
47
43
30
41
43
37
42
47
0
82
68
70
96
94
82
68
94
86
60
82
86
74
84
94
Average
44
85
76
81
87
84
76
78
93
85
72
88
85
76
77
91
81
96%
78
80
96
82
82
38
36
36
94
90
86
84
44
38
42
41
40
41
39
42
41
49
32
38
35
43
44
39
46
36
35
34
40
90
88
84
84
84
88
86
76
94
82
74
94
84
94
92
92
76
72
72
0
54
0
88
76
84
82
80
82
78
84
82
98
64
76
70
86
88
78
92
72
70
68
80
27
Average
Count total
Count under
70
77
76
84
41
68
0
91
83
85
83
40
86
83
84
83
91
76
81
73
90
85
76
93
78
82
80
86
72
35
92
100
82
92
94
96
84
90
90
88
82
80
100
86
98
88
86
88
90
90
92
88
42
47
42
27
46
44
47
45
44
41
45
33
49
49
43
47
45
40
41
41
19
39
Average
Count total
Count under 70
7
CIS111-01
Fall 2011
CIS111-09
Fall 2011
CIS111-17
Fall 2011
Chapter 1
Quiz
-100 pts.
Chapter
2 Quiz
-100
pts.
Avg.
Chapter 1
Quiz
-100 pts.
Chapter 2
Quiz
-100 pts.
Avg.
Chapter 1
Quiz
-100 pts.
Chapter
2 Quiz
-100
pts.
100
86
93
95
100
98
92
92
94
72
83
35
100
68
83
100
94
84
94
84
54
92
88
94
90
88
82
90
66
98
98
86
94
90
80
82
82
38
78
91
100
95.5
82
78
81
89
85
100
100
100
100
100
100
67
100
100
100
100
100
100
94
97
27
67
80
78
79
97
85
100
92.5
90
100
95
94
72
78
100
80
94
89
89
100
100
100
90
100
47
92
100
56
77
86
100
100
83
92
100
39
94
86
90
79
89
83
89
75
82
94
94
89
83
89
86
89
31
###
84
###
0
0
88
100
94
86
100
82
56
69
86
94
90
100
100
89
92
90.5
81
72
77
97
100
95
89
92
89
0
45
99
89
87
100
93.5
88
94
91
100
100
60
83
71.5
100
97
99
100
100
0
50
25
64
94
79
97
78
84
89
86.5
92
69
81
100
100
0
0
90
69
80
86
78
82
88
89
89
82
64
73
59
83
71
Count total
94
94
94
95
89
92
Count under 70
70
61
65.5
Average
Count total
Count under
70
Average
83
Count total
24
Average
84.11
23
Count under 70
3
2
CIS11141
Fall
2011
CIS111-55
Fall 2011
CIS111-66
Fall 2011
Chapter
1 Quiz
-100
pts.
Chapter
2 Quiz
-100
pts.
Avg.
Chapter 1
Quiz
-100 pts.
Chapter 2
Quiz
-100 pts.
Avg.
Chapter 1
Quiz
-100 pts.
Chapter
2 Quiz
-100
pts.
88.5
100
97
95
100
88
89
94
95
100
100
100
100
100
###
95
78
100
100
100
100
100
###
100
100
80
100
90
100
100
###
87
100
95
89
92
100
100
###
95
89
100
100
100
100
100
###
100
83
30
56
43
0
0
100
100
90
78
84
100
83
92
75
83
91
92
91.5
88
89
89
100
83
100
100
100
89
78
84
100
100
62
100
81
100
100
###
75
64
100
94
97
100
100
###
100
69
100
94
97
100
100
###
86
75
76
89
82.5
100
100
###
60
86
0
86
43
95
100
98
100
100
97
89
93
85
94
90
66
83
0
0
94
100
97
74
94
100
100
100
100
0
50
0
0
94
83
88.5
100
100
###
100
100
0
100
50
100
100
###
74
94
84%
84
100
92
89
100
85.32
94
100
97
100
100
Average
###
Count total
Count under
70
19
Average
94
Average
Count total
21
Count total
3
Count under 70
96
1
Count under 70
CIS111-83
Fall 2011 (Online)
Chapter 1
Quiz
-100 pts.
Chapter
2 Quiz
-100
pts.
100
100
100
73
78
75.5
81
100
90.5
91
78
84.5
Avg.
94
69
81.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
94
89
91.5
0
58
29
100
89
94.5
100
100
100
55
0
27.5
89
94
91.5
90
100
95
95
86
90.5
74
83
78.5
100
100
100
100
97
98.5
72
78
75
0
0
100
100
100
100
83
91.5
85
61
73
91
94
92.5
95
100
97.5
90
67
78.5
100
94
97
100
100
100
97
69
83
100
100
100
92
78
85
100
100
100
97
69
83
FINAL STAT
Total
Students
Total
under 70
94%
290
18
272
94%
Count total
Count under
70
32
2
97
Students who took both Quiz 1 and 2 scored a 70% or better on bo
quizzes.
Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
A. COM 231 – Public Speaking
2011-2012 Data
Results for online classes
Critical Thinking -Distance Classes
Scored Scored
5
4
COM 231 06 &07
3
3
COM 231-08
0
3
COM 231-09
4
3
Total
7
9
% met
assessment
Scored
3
6
3
1
10
Total scoring 3 or
better
12
6
8
26
Scored 1
or 2
1
1
0
2
Total
Assessed
13
7
8
28
92.80%
COM 231 Online Classes: 92.8% or 26 out of 28 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Critical Thinking - On
Campus
Scored
5
COM 231 -01
0
COM 231-02
0
COM 231-03
0
COM 231-04
0
COM 231-05
0
COM 231-10
0
Total
0
% met
assessment
Scored
4
0
3
0
4
2
2
11
Scored
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
17
Total scoring 3 or
better
3
5
3
7
5
5
28
Scored 1
or 2
3
3
4
0
1
1
12
Total
Assessed
6
8
7
7
6
6
40
70%
COM 231 Face-to-Face Classes: 70% or 28 out of 40 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
1ritical Thinking - Overall Results
Scored Scored
Scored
Total scoring 3 or
98
Scored 1
Total
COM 231 -01
COM 231-02
COM 231-03
COM 231-04
COM 231-05
COM 231-10
COM 231 06 &07
COM 231-08
COM 231-09
Totals
% met
assessment
5
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
7
0
3
0
4
2
2
3
3
3
20
3
2
3
3
3
3
6
3
1
27
better
3
5
3
7
5
5
12
6
8
54
or 2
3
3
4
0
1
1
1
1
0
14
Assessed
6
8
7
7
6
6
13
7
8
68
79.40%
Overall 79.4% or 54 out of 68 students met the benchmark
B. ENG 112 – Argument Based Research
2011-2012
Results for online classes
Section
Total
Passed
Fail
80
14
10
4
89
16
10
6
88
14
10
4
92
11
4
7
Total Assessed Online: 55
Total Passed Online: 34
Total Failed Online: 21
ENG 112 Online Classes: 62% or 34 out of 55 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Section
Total
Passed
Fail
4
18
13
5
43
22
16
6
67
20
17
3
46
20
14
6
79
21
20
1
Total Assessed In-class: 101
99
Total Passed In-class: 80
Total Failed In-class: 21
ENG 112 Face-to-Face Classes: 79% or 80 out of 101 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Section
Total
Passed
Fail
80
14
10
4
89
16
10
6
88
14
10
4
92
11
4
7
4
18
13
5
43
22
16
6
67
20
17
3
46
20
14
6
79
21
20
1
Total Assessed: 156
Total Passed: 114
Total Failed: 42
Overall: 73% or 114 out of 156 students met the benchmark
100
C. PSY 150 – General Psychology
Critical data is as follows:
PROGRAM WIDE:
N = 213
60% or higher: 150 (69.77%) Rounds to 70
Mean: 13.999
FACE TO FACE:
N = 114
60% or higher: 82 (71.93%)
Mean score : 14.39
ONLINE
N = 99
60% or higher: 68 (68.69%) Rounds to 69
Mean Score: 13.55
FULLTIME
N = 160
60% or higher: 111 (69.375%) Rounds to 69
Mean : 13.81
PARTTIME
N = 53
60% or higher: 39 (73.58%)
Mean : 14.58
Summary of Results:
PSY 150 Online Classes: 69% or 68 out of 99 students met the benchmark
PSY 150 Face-to-Face Classes: 72% or 82 out of 114 students met the benchmark
Overall 70% or 150 out of 213 students met the benchmark
101
D. ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics
2011-2012 Data
Results for online classes
25182,84,85
%
Passed
85%
#
Passed
39 Count 46
ECO 251 Online Classes: 85% or 39 out of 46 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
251-02
251-04
251-06
251-07
251-09
251-11
251-16
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
%
Passed
79%
68%
75%
71%
71%
71%
80%
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
#
Passed
15 Count 19
15 Count 22
12 Count 16
15 Count 21
17 Count 24
15 Count 21
20 Count 25
ECO 251 Face-to-Face Classes: 74% or 109 out of 148 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Total
%
#
Results
Passed
76% Passed 148 Count 194
Overall 76% or 148 out of 194 students met the benchmark
Overall 74% of students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
74% of seated students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
73% of online students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
102
Goal Six: Cultural Awareness
A. COM 110 – Introduction to Communications
2011-2012 Data
Please add your data below: (Results below should include assessment of online, face-to-face and
overall)
Results for online classes:
# Correct:10
9
8
7
110-82
110-83
110-85
110-86
3
1
0
0
0
3
1
2
0
5
0
0
4
1
10
12
6 or less Met
1
1
1
0
7
10
11
14
Total #
8
11
12
14
Number Met Assessment:
42
Total # assessed:
45
Percentage Met assessment: 93%
COM 110 Online Classes: 93% or 42 out of 45 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes:
# Correct:10
9
8
7
110-01
110-02
110-03
110-04
110-05
110-06
110-07
110-08
110-09
110-10
110-12
110-13
110-14
110-15
110-16
110-17
110-18
110-20
110-21
110-22
110-23
110-24
3
4
3
9
8
2
3
3
2
4
3
6
4
4
5
4
4
7
3
4
18
17
3
4
7
4
7
5
1
5
4
5
2
6
3
4
6
8
4
4
2
6
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
7
5
0
1
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
0
0
1
2
2
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
9
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
0
0
6 or less Met
8
9
7
3
0
4
2
1
3
3
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
7
2
0
0
10
13
15
19
19
10
7
17
13
13
15
17
16
14
17
17
14
17
11
14
19
18
Total #
18
22
22
22
19
14
9
18
16
16
17
19
16
15
18
17
14
19
18
16
19
18
103
110-25
110-26
110-28
110-29
110-30
110-31
110-32
110-33
110-34
110-35
110-36
110-40
110-41
110-42
110-44
110-45
110-46
110-50
110-51
110-52
110-90
17
9
3
5
3
2
6
6
3
5
1
1
5
8
4
4
3
0
5
3
4
0
8
5
10
5
5
2
3
5
5
1
4
6
2
2
6
4
3
5
3
7
0
3
0
7
4
2
3
7
2
2
5
3
3
1
3
5
2
4
2
1
2
0
1
4
0
2
4
2
1
4
2
4
2
3
0
0
3
3
1
2
1
2
0
3
4
1
1
1
0
5
1
2
8
4
1
0
0
2
5
5
3
1
5
17
21
12
22
14
13
13
17
14
14
11
10
17
11
9
18
12
8
14
8
15
615
17
24
16
23
15
14
13
22
15
16
19
14
18
11
9
20
17
13
17
9
20
724
Number Met Assessment:
615
Total # assessed:
724
Percentage Met assessment: 84.9%
COM 110 Face-to-Face Classes: 84.9% or 615 out of 724 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Number Met Assessment:
657
Total # assessed:
769
Percentage Met assessment: 85.4%
Overall 85.4% or 657 out of 769 students met the benchmark
104
B. SPA 112 – INTERMEDIATE SPANISH
2011-2012 Data
General Education Goal Area: Cultural Awareness / Foreign Languages (Spanish)
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
FACE TO FACE
GOAL: Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of some culture aspects.
OBJECTIVE: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for basic knowledge of culture aspects.
MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assessment tool.
After collecting data from seven Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections 01, 02, 04, 05, 36, 47, and 48 as of 2/10/12:
Number of students tested: 88
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 78
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 10
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 88.64%
SPA 112 Face-to-Face 88.64% or 78 out of 88 students met the benchmark
Grade Report (2011-2012):
Sect.01 Sect.02 Sect.04 Sect.05 Sect.36 Sect.47 Sect.48
90.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
60.00
70.00
60.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
90.00 90.00
100.00 100.00
80.00
100.00 90.00
100.00
90.00 100.00
90.00 70.00
100.00 100.00
90.00
100.00 40.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
100.00 90.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
80.00 80.00
100.00
50.00 100.00
90.00 100.00
90.00
70.00
70.00
80.00 20.00 100.00
80.00
70.00
80.00 90.00
80.00
90.00
50.00
80.00 80.00
80.00
50.00
60.00
90.00
80.00
90.00
80.00
100.00
50.00
90.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
60.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
96.88
90.00
75.00
86.43
80.00
80.00
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
105
8
16
15
10
14
11
14
0
0
0
Total
88
6
16
15
8
12
9
12
0
0
0
Total
78
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
Total
10
75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 85.71% 81.82% 85.71% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
# total students tested:
88
# students who scored 70% or higher:
# students who scored less than 70%:
% students who met the goal:
=
88.64%
78
10
88.64%
General Education Goal Area: Cultural Awareness / Foreign Languages (Spanish)
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
ONLINE
GOAL: Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of some culture aspects.
OBJECTIVE: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for basic knowledge of culture aspects.
MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assessment tool.
After collecting data from three Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections , 84 (online), 85 (online) and 86(online) as of 2/10/12:
Number of students tested: 49
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 44
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 5
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 89.80%
SPA 112 Online 89.8% or 44 out of 49 students met the benchmark
Grade Report
2011-2012
Koochoi
Sect. 84 Sect. 85 Sect. 86
online online
online
70.00 80.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
90.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
60.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
70.00
60.00
80.00
106
Average
60.00
90.00
70.00
60.00
90.00
70.00
80.00
60.00
80.00
80.00
78.00
75.33
77.37
# tested per class: 15
15
19
Total: 49
# who scored 70
14
13
17
Total: 44
or higher
# who scored less
1
2
2
Total: 5
than 70%
# students who scored 70% or higher : 44
# students who scored less than 70% : 5
% students who met the goal:
The Cultural Awareness Goal was met.
89.80%
General Education Goal Area: Cultural Awareness / Foreign Languages (Spanish)
Assessment during the 2011-2012 Academic Year
OVERALL
GOAL: Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of some culture aspects.
OBJECTIVE: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for basic knowledge of culture aspects.
MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assessment tool.
After collecting data from ten Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections 01, 02, 04, 05, 36, 47, 48, 84 (online), 85 (online) and 86
(online) as of 2/10/11:
Number of students tested: 137
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 122
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 15
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 89.05%
Overall 89.05% or 122 out of 137 students met the benchmark
Overall (SPA 112 and COM110)
86% of students met the benchmark
85% seated
92% online
The Cultural Awareness goal was met
107
108
Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Science
A. HIS 131 – American History
Gen Ed Stats Fall 2011 - Final
20
20
19
19
19
19
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
15
15
14
13
20
20
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
13
w/ less than 12
points
TOTALS = 146
Passing (12+) = 111
Passing % = 76.0
19
19
17
16
16
14
14
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
9
8
6
3
2
2
17
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
1
15
12
11
10
10
9
8
7
6
20
20
20
20
19
17
17
16
15
14
14
14
14
14
Online
Total =
49
Passing (12+) = 43
Passing % = 87.8
HIS 131 Online 87.8% or 43 out of 49 students met the benchmark
HIS 131 Face-to-Face 70.1% or 68 out of 97 students met the benchmark
Overall 76% or 111 out of 146 students met the benchmark
109
Online
Online
Online
20
17
17
17
17
15
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
10
9
9
7
20
20
20
20
19
19
18
18
16
16
16
16
14
19
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
Seated
Total =
97
Passing (12+) = 68
Passing % = 70.1
Online
B. SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology
2011-2012 Data
Seated
N
Passed
Sec (01) N 39 of 52
28
Sec (06) N 26 of 27
18
Online
% passed
72
N
Sec (86) N 22 of 26
Passed
21
% passed
95
69
Sec (87) N 15 of 25
15
100
17
94
13
76
66
92%
Sec (08) N 14 of 25
9
64
Sec (89) N 18 of 27
Sec (07) N 22 of 27
12
55
Sec (91) N 17 of 24
Sec ( 11) N 22 of 26
16
73
Sec (32) N 17 of 26
15
88
SEATED
N 140
98
70%
COMBINED
N 212
164
77%
ONLINE
N 72
Overall 77% of students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
70% of seated students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
90% of online students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
110
Goal Eight: Natural Sciences
Results for online classes:
Total of 49 students were tested in 3 online sections of Bio 110.
Scores
<70%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% 70+
ONLINE
Sec 04
Sec 02
Sec 05
1
1
2
5
3
2
4
4
4
5
6
7
1
2
2
94%
94%
88%
BIO 110 Online Classes: 92% or 45 out of 49 students met the
benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Total of 124 students were tested in 7 sections of Bio 110.
Scores
<70%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FACE-TO-FACE
Sec61 Sec11 Sec12 Sec13 Sec31 Sec33 Sec21
11
0
0
0
4
5
14
11
7
8
0
4
0
33
22
7
0
42
25
14
19
44
47
25
50
42
64
24
11
40
67
8
25
18
10
% 70+
88%
100%
100%
100%
96%
95%
86%
BIO 110 Face-to-Face Classes: 94% or 116 out of 124 students met
the benchmark
Overall results: Total # of students: 173
Total # of online students = 49. Total # of face-to-face students = 124
Percentage
Scores
Online
F-t-F
Combined
28
72
<70%
8
5.6
6.4
70%
20.8
9.7
12.8
80%
25
18.5
20
90%
37.5
41.9
41
100%
70%+
10
93%
23
93%
19.8
93.60%
111
Goal Nine: Humanities and Fine Arts
A. ART 111 – Art Appreciation
Section
90-100
80-89
70-79
85
11
4
1
86
10
6
1
87
14
88
11
1
totals
46
11
60-69
50-59
Below 50
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
ART 111 Online 92% or 59 out of 64 students met the benchmark
Results for face-to-face classes;
Section
90-100
80-89
70-79
1
13
5
2
2
13
3
5
10
3
1
6
13
1
1
41
8
12
57
24
totals
60-69
50-59
Below 50
2
2
2
0
2
ART 111 Face-to-Face 95% or 83 out of 87 students met the benchmark
Overall results:
Section
90-100
80-89
70-79
1
13
5
2
2
13
3
5
10
3
1
6
13
1
1
41
8
12
85
11
4
1
86
10
6
1
87
14
88
11
1
103
35
totals
60-69
50-59
Below 50
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
5
1
4
Overall 93% or 142 out of 152 students met the benchmark
112
B. MUS 110 – Music Appreciation
MUS 110 Fall 2011
Results for online classes
48 students in sections 85, 86, 87 and 88 were assessed with 39 students or 81.25% meeting the benchmark.
On-Line Classes
Section 86
100%
4
90%
4
80%
3
70%
3
60%
50%
Total
14
*data from sections 85 and 87 were combined
Section 88
3
4
2
1
1
Section 85&87*
4
3
6
2
7
11
1
Results for face-to-face classes;
155 students in sections 1,2,3,7, 31, and 61 were assessed with 108 students or 69.03% meeting the benchmark.
Face-to-face
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 7
Section 31
100%
3
1
1
2
2
90%
4
7
8
3
2
1
80%
8
9
8
7
6
2
70%
6
5
8
4
3
8
60%
4
7
10
2
50%
1
4
2
3
40%
2
1
3
1
20%
Total
Section 61
6
1
21
34
41
18
13
Overall results:
A total of 203 students were assessed with 147 or 72.41% meeting the benchmark.
C. HUM 130 – Myth in Human Culture
48 students in sections 85, 86, 87 and 88 were assessed with 39 students or 81.25% meeting the benchmark.
On-Line Classes Section 86
100% 4
3
4
90%
4
4
3
80%
3
2
6
70%
3
1
2
Section 88
Section 85&87*
113
21
60%
1
7
50%
Total
14
11
1
*data from sections 85 and 87 were combined
Results for face-to-face classes;
155 students in sections 1,2,3,7, 31, and 61 were assessed with 108 students or 69.03% meeting the benchmark.
Face-to-face
100% 3
90%
4
80%
8
70%
6
60%
4
50%
1
40%
2
20%
Total
21
Section 1
1
1
7
8
9
8
5
8
7
10
4
2
1
3
1
34
41
Section 2
2
2
3
2
7
6
4
3
2
Section 3
18
21
13
Section 7
1
2
8
6
3
1
Overall results:
A total of 203 students were assessed with 147 or 72.41% meeting the benchmark.
Overall 77% of students met the Humanities/Fine Arts benchmark
75% of seated students met the Humanities/Fine Arts benchmark
81% of online students met the Humanities/Fine Arts benchmark
114
Section 31
Section 61
Goal Ten: Information Literacy
Assessment Results:
Online
ENG 111-58
15
Total Met
Benchmark
8
ENG 111-73
7
2
29%
ENG 111-KPK1
32
23
72%
ENG 111-WGL1
28
25
89%
ENG 111-18
15
13
87%
97
71
73%
Class/Section
Total Assessed
% Met
53%
Number of students assessed: 97
Number of students who passed: 71
Percentage of students who passed: 73%
Face to Face (not applicable)
Rubric on file with Library
115