Report of General Education Assessment
2012 - 2013
General Education Committee 2012 – 2013
Joey Anderson, Chair - Mathematics
Debbie Bouton – Learning Unit
Allan DiDonato - Collaborative Learning English, Reading & Humanities
Catherine Felton – Behavioral and Social Sciences
Lisa Foley – Collaborative Learning English, Reading & Humanities
Richard Helms – Behavioral and Social Sciences
Carolyn Jacobs – Arts and Communication
Mary Ann Bradham - Mathematics
Jorge Koochoi – Foreign Language
Holly Maurer – Arts and Communication
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
Elizabeth West – Collaborative Learning English, Reading & Humanities
Keith Powell – Construction Technology
Lisa LaCaria – Information Technology
Roschella Stephens – Health Sciences
Terri Manning - Institutional Research
Denise Wells – Institutional Effectiveness
1
Contents
General Education Goals and Courses Used for Assessment during the 2012-2013 Academic Year .................... 4
General Education Assessment Procedure................................................................................................................ 5
2012-2013 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary ................................................................. 6
General Education Goal One: Communication ....................................................................................................... 9
A.
Oral Communication Assessment: ............................................................................................................. 9
B.
Written Communication Assessment ....................................................................................................... 12
General Education Goal Two: Mathematics .......................................................................................................... 15
General Education Goal Three: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving .............................................................. 18
A.
BIO 110 –Critical Thinking ..................................................................................................................... 18
B.
ENG 112 – Argument-Based Research ................................................................................................... 20
C.
PSY 150 – General Psychology ............................................................................................................... 22
D.
ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics .............................................................................................. 25
General Education Goal Four: Cultural Awareness............................................................................................... 27
A.
COM 110 – Introduction to Communication ........................................................................................... 27
B.
SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II ........................................................................................................... 29
C.
COM 231 – Public Speaking ................................................................................................................... 32
D.
COM 120 – Interpersonal Communication.............................................................................................. 33
General Education Goal Five: Social and Behavioral Social Sciences ................................................................. 34
A.
HIS 131 – American History I ................................................................................................................. 34
B.
SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology...................................................................................................... 36
General Education Goal Six: Natural Sciences ..................................................................................................... 38
General Education Goal Seven: Humanities/Fine Arts .......................................................................................... 40
A.
ART 111 – Art Appreciation ................................................................................................................... 40
B.
MUS 110 – Music Appreciation .............................................................................................................. 42
C.
HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture ....................................................................................................... 43
General Education Goal Eight: Information Literacy ............................................................................................ 46
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal One: Communication .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
Oral Communication ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
Written Communication........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Two: Mathematics ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Three: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
BIO 110-Critical Thinking/Scientific Reasoning .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
ENG 112 – Argument Based Research .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2
C.
PSY 150 – General Psychology ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
D.
ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Four: Cultural Awareness ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
COM 110 – Introduction to Communications ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
SPA 112 – Intermediate Spanish ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.
COM 231 – Public Speaking ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
D.
COM 120 – Interpersonal Communication.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Five: Social and Behavioral Science ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
HIS 131 – American History ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Six: Natural Sciences .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Seven: Humanities and Fine Arts ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
ART 111 – Art Appreciation ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
MUS 110 – Music Appreciation .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.
HUM 130 – Myth in Human Culture ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Eight: Information Literacy.......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
General Education Goals and Courses Used for
Assessment during the 2012-2013 Academic Year
Courses
General Ed Goal
assessed
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.
COM 120
ENG 111
Mathematics – Students will apply mathematical concepts and skills to MAT 115
analyze, manipulate, and interpret quantitative data.
MAT 161
Critical Thinking / Problem solving – Students will demonstrate the BIO 110
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
COM 231
COM 120
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
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.
5
2012-2013 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary
70% score 4 on all
parts of rubric
89% of students met minimum qualification
88% of seated students scored 3 or better
93% of online students scored 3 or better
70% score 3 of 5 in
3 goal areas
Critical Thinking / Problem solving
– Students will demonstrate the
ability to identify, analyze,
question, and evaluate content as
a guide to understanding and
action.
BIO 110 - 70%
score 70% or above
70% of students met all three goal areas
69% of seated students met all three goal
areas
75% of online students met all three goal
areas
BIO 110 – 70% of students score 70 or better
89% of seated students scored 70 or better
97% of online students scored 70 or better
ENG 112 – 70%
score 2 of 2 on
rubric
ENG 112 – 74% of students scored 2 of 2
72% of seated students scored 2 of 2
80% of online students scored 2 of 2
PSY 150 - 70% score
12 or better
PSY150 – 70% of students scored 12 or better
73% of seated students scored 12 or better
63% of online students scored 12 or better
ECO 251 - 70% of
students score 6 or
better
ECO 251 – 80% of students scored 6 or better
78% of seated students scored 6 or better
85% of online students scored 6 or better
82% of hybrid students scored 6 or better
Overall – 78% of students met the benchmark
79 % of seated students met the benchmark
76 % of online students met the benchmark
6
Met
met
Result
met
77% of students scored 3 or better
68% of seated students scored 3 or better
95% of online students scored 3 or better
met
Objective
70% score 3 of 5 on
rubric
met
General Ed Goal Area
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.
COM 110
COM 231
COM 120
70% score 7 of 10
points
SPA 112 - 70% score
70 or better
COM 110 –86% of students scored 7 or more of
10 points
86% of seated students scored 7 or better
88% of online students scored 7 or better
SPA 112 - 90% of students scored 70 or better
89% of seated students scored 70 or better
91% of online students scored 70 or better
COM 231 - 76% of students scored 70 or better
76% of seated students scored 70 or better
76% of online students scored 70 or better
met
Cultural Awareness – Students
will demonstrate knowledge of
cultural differences.
COM 120 - 95% of students scored 70 or better
96% of seated students scored 70 or better
94% of online students scored 70 or better
MUS 110 - 70%
score 70 or above
HUM 130 – 70%
score 3 of 5 on
rubric
ART 111 –87.4% of students scored 70 or
above
88% of seated students scored 70 or above
87% of online students scored 70 or above
MUS 110 – 79% of students scored 70 or above
73.4% of seated students scored 70 or above
96% of online students scored 70 or above
HUM 130 - 78% of students scored 3 or higher
85% of seated students scored 3 or better
72% of online students scored 3 or better
Overall – 81.4% of students met the
benchmark
80.4% of seated students met the benchmark
82.3% of online students met the benchmark
7
met
ART 111- 70% score
70 or above
Overall – 96% of students met the benchmark
96% of seated students met the benchmark
96% of online students met the benchmark
94% of students scored 70% or higher
93% of seated students scored 70 or better
97% of online students scored 70 or better
met
70% score 70% or
above
SOC 210 – 95% of students scored 2 or higher
96% of seated students scored 2 or better
95% of online students scored 2 or better
met
SOC 210 - 2 of 3 on
rubric
met
Natural Sciences – Students will
demonstrate comprehension of
the major steps of the scientific
method.
Humanities / Fine Arts – Students
will demonstrate knowledge of
the humanities and critical skills
in assessing cultural/artistic merit
and significance.
70% meet objective
HIS 131 - 12 of 20
on rubric
met
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.
Overall – 85.7% of students met the
benchmark
85.6% of seated students met the benchmark
86.2% of online students met the benchmark
HIS 131 – 96% of students scored 12 or better
96% of seated students scored 12 or better
97% of online students scored 12 or better
Pilot results:
70% score 6 out of
10 or higher
ENG 111 – 68% of students scored 7 or more of
10 points
8
not met
Information Literacy - Students
will effectively use research
techniques to identify, select, use,
document and evaluate
information sources appropriate
to a particular need.
General Education Goal One: 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 2012:
Term
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
57
5
48
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Number Enrolled
1,629
117
1,026
Course & Number
COM 110
COM 120
COM 231
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
White, Linda
Communication
Oral Communication
COM 110, COM 120, COM 231
70 %
3
5
182
141
77 %
119
81
68 %
63
60
95 %
Twenty-four sections of COM 110, COM 120 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 fulltime 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 courses is to prepare and deliver
speeches (Informative speeches in COM 110; persuasive speeches in COM 231;
Informative research Oral Presentation in COM 120). The instructors of the
9
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
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, COM 231 and COM 120
GEN ED Oral Communication Assessment process is the responsibility of the
full-time Communication faculty member serving on the College General
Education Committee.
Spring 2013 - 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, COM
231 or COM 120 but were assigned a different section number. Each section
included specifics about the assignment provided by the instructor such as time
limits, notes allowed, source citations, visual aid requirements.
(Note: one section of COM 120 was not included for assessment because the
instructor used a group assignment which did not meet the assignment
requirements for assessment)
Student speeches were assessed using the Oral Communication Rubric.
COM faculty completed a reliability check by first independently reviewing three
student speeches with variance on all three speeches. In a face to face meeting to
resolve the inconsistencies, additional speeches were reviewed by using a
modified version of the Oral Communication rubric. The standard established
was to weight three factors (Organization, Content and Delivery) equally to
determine the final score.
Faculty agreed that the rubric does not equally weight these three factors.
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 inarticulate
Content which develops main ideas using appropriate supporting material examples, statistics, personal experience
Appropriate citation of sources to support content
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.
Faculty noted no differences related to assessment tool for seated or online
classes.
We did note that the "Oral Communication Rubric" is somewhat difficult to use
and that it tends to focus evaluation on delivery and organization. As an interim
measure for this year's assessment, faculty agreed to evaluate equally on
Organization, Content and Delivery based on the standards described in the
rubric. This change in application of the rubric impacted the evaluation of data.
With increased emphasis on content, we could see that this is an area that will
need more emphasis from faculty.
The faculty continues to have concerns with the actual recording of speeches.
10
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
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 received some new
digital cameras since last year, but audio pick-up of speeches is still limited. If
resources allow, the purchase of wireless microphones for student speakers may
resolve this problem. We continue to observe difficulties associated with
PowerPoint- lighting, difficulty seeing slides. We will continue to suggest that
COM classes have designated speaking areas with built-in recording equipment.
(Caveat: In our discussions we noted that students are performing at both ends of
the continuum so our comments may seem contradictory when analyzing
strengths and weaknesses.)
Strengths of student speakers included
Oral organization with well-developed introductions, credibility and previews
Speakers continue to improve with citation of sources - a skill that is extremely
challenging for student speakers.
Delivery strengths include extemporaneous delivery with conversational delivery
style and good eye contact.
Areas continuing to need improvement include
Choice of appropriate topics
Vague organizational structure
Vague references to research
Some excessive vocalics (um, uh's)
When using PowerPoint, tendency to stay behind computer workstation
Since this was the first assessment of COM 120 - Interpersonal Communication,
we were pleased to note the success of these students. It was noted by instructors
that a number of these students have already taken COM 110 or COM 231.
Students in seated classes did not perform as well as online students. It was also
noted that online students performed more consistently at appropriate level than
did seated classes. Faculty noted that students in seated classes who may be more
marginal seem to be more likely to persist than in online classes. It was also
noted that online classes selected were taught by full time faculty.
Results from this year's assessment are less than we had hoped for but
realistically it helps us see where we need to focus our efforts for the next few
years. Due to the revised assessment method we noted more emphasis on content
issues. Results and observations from faculty indicate that students also need to
improve on topic selection, development of content and delivery.
In our April meeting, COM faculty will be working in several areas:
1. Refine Oral Communication rubric so that it reflects more accurately criteria
for each point in the rubric
2. Developing professional development for part time faculty. Ideas include
workshop; tutorials online (Best Practices) on topics such as topic selection,
introductions, using PowerPoint, citing sources; delivery. We see this as an
ongoing project that would probably be PDP projects for full time faculty.
The Oral Communication Goal Was Met.
11
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 2012
were as follows:
Term
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
119
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Number Enrolled
2,795
Course & Number
ENG 111
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Walker
English, Reading & Humanities
Written Communication
ENG 111
70 %
4
4
122
109
89 %
82
72
88 %
40
37
93 %
In order to measure objectives and student outcomes, students were required to
choose one of the topics listed below and write one complete paragraph. Students
were expected to include prewriting, drafting, and revising of the paragraph. The
paragraph was to be reflective of their level of writing and include a topic
sentence, supporting details, and an appropriate closing.
Students chose one of these topics:
1. Describe a risk that paid off.
2. What do you believe is the main purpose for obtaining a college education?
3. Explain or tell about a career that suits you best.
The following Grading Rubric was used to evaluate each paragraph:
Yes No
___ ___ The paragraph has an appropriate topic sentence
___ ___ The paragraph stays on one topic that is stated in the topic sentence.
___ ___ The paragraph meets standards of correctness.
___ ___ The paragraph has supporting sentences that gave reasons/details/facts
12
Faculty analysis:
There has been a mixed response about the assessment. Some feel that it doesn’t
adequately assess the broader skills required to develop an essay that is the basis
for writing in the course. Development of ideas, organization and a deeper level of
analysis are goals of English 111 writing, and these are not part of the assessment.
However, some feel the strength of the assessment is that it addresses the basic
foundation of good writing, the paragraph. Some instructors like the response from
prompts given to students, fresh and original questions, not an existing
assignment. Another strength noted is that it is an on-the-spot writing sample [for
F2F classes], which is important because it shows a student’s true aptitude for
writing without having time to revise, edit and proofread. While it is a raw sample,
it still provides some good data.
The online assessment is a different experience, however. Students do not have a
time limit and have the advantage of using word processing applications that
correct spelling, grammar, etc. However, student success was not significantly
affected by this factor in F2F classes and did not change the overall results.
F2F = face to face
Strengths:
Students clearly understood the basic concept of paragraph structure and
development. A clear sense of topic sentence, focus and development was evident.
F2F students demonstrated that they understood the stages of the writing process.
Online students simply submitted the product, but not significant differences
emerged related to the process.
Weaknesses:
Grammar, mechanics and usage continue to be a concern, but students did
demonstrate a basic level competence. So while not a pronounced weakness,
grammar, usage and mechanics will continue to be a point of emphasis.
Focused development was the single issue that emerged in the assessment.
Students understood the basic concept of the paragraph, but in develop the idea,
some encountered difficulty supporting the argument with a unified line of
reasoning. Some off topic sentences resulted in some students not writing
successful essay, even when the writing was clear and correct.
This could have been due to the nature of the assessment. It is difficult to limit the
response to a single idea and an attempt to broaden connections or provide context
may have played a part in this.
Learn:
The single most significant feature of the assessment is that it provides a snapshot
of where students are at a fundamental level. While students generally performed
satisfactorily on the assessment (meeting the standard for the four points of the
rubric), the assessment still revealed a range in the way students developed
responses that might affect instruction regarding sentence structure, logical
development of ideas, supporting details, and issues of style.
While there was no significant difference in the performance between F2F and
online students, the issue of student involvement and retention does come into
play for online students. Student retention is probably greater for F2F classes;
therefore, the population being assessed is slightly different between F2F and
online classes.
Compare:
Strategies:
Integration of redesigned program for developmental English and Reading will be
implemented in the fall of 2013. Eng 111 instruction will shift to accommodate a
change in the way students enter Eng 111.
Discussions have begun by discipline chairs to standardize methodology for parttime instructors [while maintaining freedom for individual approaches and
strategies] to reach agreement about the types of writing and the expectations for
13
writing in Eng 111.
Additionally, because of a larger number of online sections being taught by parttime instructors, there has been discussion to develop guidelines for online
methodology.
Recommend that Eng 111 instructors continue to emphasize writing as a process,
emphasizing revision as a major component of the process. In this regard, some
interest has emerged for incorporating the concept of the writing portfolios for
students to track and build development.
Some interest has emerged to view Eng 111 not as a series of essays that
determine grade, but as a progression toward some improvement. Therefore,
where the student ends is more important that how the student wrote at the
beginning of the course. Implementation could be as easy as adjusting how much
assignments are weighted.
The Written Communication Goal Was Met.
The College Goal for Communication Was Met.
14
General Education Goal Two: 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 2012 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
9
39
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Number Enrolled
218
1,132
Course & Number
MAT 115
MAT 161
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Bradham
Mathematics
Mathematics
MAT 115, MAT 161
70 %
60
100
403
282
70 %
338
233
69 %
65
49
75 %
Multiple Choice Questions on Final Exam.
Mastery on each of 3 goal requirements. (Students must have 60% of the
questions correct on each of 3 parts.)
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 assesses the specified goal. In addition, mastery of the general
education goal strongly correlates to mastery of the course goals and a passing
grade.
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
15
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. Both MAT 115 and
MAT 161 showed understanding 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, the College Algebra students showed the greatest strength
in this area with 89% of the students meeting the benchmark. The new textbook
for MAT 161 used more applied problems and this seemed to be what students
were the strongest in. On the flipside, MAT 115 met the benchmark in this area
also but this was the most challenging goal for them.
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
The online students in Mathematical Models showed strengths that paralleled the
strengths of the seated students although the percentages were on average, 1%
lower than the seated classes.
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 problems
with personal finance seemed to be the topic that was singled out the most.
The first part of the goal requires that the students analyze quantitative data. This
portion of the goal is normally the least complex and normally the strongest area
for the students. However the students in College Algebra had the lowest scores
on this goal. The students seemed to have more difficulty with understanding and
using the definitions of terms in the College Algebra course. The college algebra
students also struggled with piecewise functions and average rate of change.
Online classes seemed to have the same weaknesses as face-to-face courses.
Continued focus on contextualized learning through real world problems and
projects can be effective in promoting the higher level thinking skills that help to
master interpreting quantitative data.
College Algebra used a new textbook and a new assessment this semester.
Therefore with all the changes, it does not seem valid to compare the scores from
this semester with previous semesters.
In the MAT 115 course, the students still find the third goal to be their weakness,
however with projects and a focus on the applied problems, students are still
reaching the benchmark for this goal.
In College Algebra, after using the new textbook and new software system the
instructors need to reorganize the course by narrowing down the number of
topics that are to be covered. This way all instructors will make sure to spend an
adequate amount of time on each topic of importance.
In MAT 115 the faculty will continue to work on interpreting quantitative data
through applied problems. This continues to be the area that students have the
most difficulty.
Online courses will continue to improve the use of videos and online resources to
improve student’s understanding of the material.
College Algebra moved to a new textbook and new software system and new
assessment. After not reaching the goal of 70% of students mastering all 3 goals,
we looked over the assessment and have made some updates. Some of the
questions had visual graphics that were unclear and some questions needed to be
reworded.
16
In the Mathematical Models course, it was noticed that a few questions were
missed most often. After discussions with the faculty it was determined that
different instructors were not focusing as heavy in one area as other instructors
and this brought the scores down for the third part of our goal. The assessment
will be updated to only include material that is covered by all instructors.
The College Goal for Mathematics Was Met.
17
General Education Goal Three: 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 BIO 110, ENG 112, PSY 150 and ECO 251.
During the Fall 2012 term, course enrollments for BIO 110, ENG 112, PSY 150 ECO 251 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
25
44
58
17
Number Enrolled
575
1,058
1,726
429
Course & Number
BIO 110
ENG 112
PSY 150
ECO 251
Objective:
70% of students will meet minimal standard set for Critical Thinking.
A. BIO 110 –Critical Thinking
To measure the goal, the following objective was set:
Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal standards for Critical Thinking using to design an
experiment using the scientific method. In using a story problem scenario students are encouraged to
‘role play’ to help them answer questions 5-14 which were based on critical thinking.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Critical Thinking
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took place: BIO 110
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
174
Assessed:
158
Met benchmark:
91%
Percentage Met Benchmark:
138
Seated assessed:
123
Seated met benchmark:
89 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
36
Online assessed:
35
Online met benchmark:
97 %
Percentage of online met benchmark:
All sciences use the scientific method as the central tool for undertaking any
Method:
scientific work. Student should have a minimal level of competence in
18
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
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.
The tool was a Multiple Choice Test that assesses both the scientific method
and critical thinking. The assessment tool also includes four additional
questions (for a total of 14 questions) that assess the students’ ability to
critically think. Because scientific method requires critical thinking faculty
also wanted to be able to assess critical thinking across the entire course
rather than just in one topic (scientific method). The first ten questions cover
the topic of scientific method and assessment can be done for just that topic.
Questions 5-14 (10 questions) all cover the topic of critical thinking with the
subject of Biology.
Assessment was done separately for Critical Thinking for this group of
students. We started with a scenario that required students 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
14 questions 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/critical thinking 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.
Faculty was pleased with this outcome. Student success is quite good and
improvement in problem areas was also seen. Faculty noticed that there was a
decrease in success for the face to face class with the Critical Thinking
assessment (93% vs. 89%) but there was no difference in success for online
students (97%) for both Scientific Method and Critical Thinking.
Students were able to use critical thinking skills to analyze several scientific
method and biological scenarios
Students continue to have some vocabulary issues. The difference in success
with the Critical Thinking assessment may have been due to students being
required to shift their focus from one topic (Scientific Method) to other topics
of Biology within the same assessment.
Faculty discussions and shared ideas for continuity of vocabulary seems to
have made an improvement in student success.
Improvement was seen in the questions that had given students problems last
year.
Faculty will work together to build a department Scientific Method teaching
tool and problem bank. Since this is the first time the combination assessment
was done, faculty will continue to watch for a pattern for the Critical
Thinking assessment and then determine the best strategy to take.
19
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.
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
West
English, Reading & Humanities
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
ENG 112
70 %
70
100
174
129
74 %
134
97
72 %
40
32
80 %
We used existing assignments in ENG 112 courses- argument research essays
such as Toulmin or Rogerian arguments, letters to the editor or solution finding
projects
There were no differences between seated and online courses.
We used a rubric that assessed whether students addressed two or more sides of
the argument with salient points.
No differences.
The faculty liked our assessment tool because it is straightforward in nature.
They were happy we met the benchmark and felt it was due in part to connection
to the Academic Learning Center, embedded librarians in seated and online
courses and the usage of EasyBib- a citation builder sponsored by the CPCC
library.
May be some differences if seated instructors did not utilize the embedded
librarian services.
Online students were strong this year. May be due to embedded librarian and
EasyBib resources.
Seated students were choosing a variety of strong, complex topics. Some were
local in nature, which added to the complexity of the research. Essays showed
attention to more sides of the argument this year.
Online weaknesses- still struggling with difficult concepts to grasp (argument
theory and MLA citation), instruction takes attention to detail, time and
preparation.
Seated weaknesses were that instructors may not be utilizing the embedded
librarian services as much as online instructors.
20
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
We learned that focusing on local topics stems the tide of plagiarism because
students cannot buy or copy entire papers from the internet because there is no
inventory for papers on local topics.
No difference.
We saw less usage of internet (.com) sources than last year and more reliance on
academic CPCC library research databases.
No difference.
We are looking at surveying ENG 112 instructors and pinpointing troublesome
areas in which we need to create Panopto tutorials to make them available to fulltime and part-time instructors.
These tutorials would be designed for seated and online courses.
21
C. PSY 150 – General Psychology
Objective:
70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 7 of 10 questions.
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Helms
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
PSY 150
70 %
12
20
259
182
70 %
166
122
73 %
93
59
63 %
Ten psychology faculty members teaching PSY-150 (General Psychology)
were sampled. Six were fulltime faculty, and four were part-time faculty.
Seven classes were seated. Three classes were online. Students were provided
a research scenario involving a causal effect between preschool tutoring and
first grade reading levels, 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.
We used the same instrument employed for the last three years (2009-2012),
consisting of an experimental scenario positing an accelerated reading
program for preschool children, and discussing 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.
The Psychology faculty has a generally favorable impression of the
assessment; it appears to be a reliable instrument for measuring critical
thinking in psychology. It was noted that some answers to specific questions
will need to be rewritten in order to avoid ambiguity or confusion on the
students’ part, and this process is underway for implementation in the 20132014 academic year assessment. 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.
In general, students in seated classes tended to perform better on this
instrument than those in online courses (73.5% meeting benchmark in seated
sections as opposed to 63.44% meeting benchmark in online courses).
However, only three online courses were sampled, and a wider variance in
scores can be expected with the reduced number of students sampled. Had a
larger number of online courses been sampled, with the online course sections
being roughly equivalent to the seated class sections, it is possible that--simply
through regression toward the mean--the scores may have been much more
similar.
In addition, while this is not a measure covered in the statistics for this
22
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
assessment, students of fulltime instructors performed slightly better than
those of part-time instructors (Fulltime = 71.68% meeting benchmark. Parttime = 66.67% meeting benchmark). Again, slightly more fulltime instructors'
course sections were sampled compared to part-time instructors' course
sections (60% Fulltime versus 40% Part-time).
Both online and part-time faculty students demonstrated more difficulty in
analyzing and interpreting the data presented in the problem, compared to
fulltime faculty and seated students. As indicated above, this may be a
statistical issue given the unequal numbers of students sampled in each group,
and may need to be addressed in student selection and assignment in future
assessments.
As noted in the previous year assessment, the data seems to indicate that both
face to face and online students are having more difficulty with questions
tapping level one critical knowledge and basic comprehension and did
disproportionately better on level three critical synthesis and level four critical
evaluation. Specifically, in a problem posing a hypothetical experiment,
students had marked difficulty as a group in defining specific terms associated
with the experimental method (independent variable, dependent variable,
control group). Despite this, they appeared to be able to use the data provided
to accurately identify and interpret the experiment outcome, and to draw
conclusions from the data. As this assessment is intended to demonstrate
competency with critical thinking (as opposed to definition of terms), the
structure of the assessment tool may need to be examined prior to the 20132014 assessment. However, it does appear that students in all courses may
benefit from more intensive instruction in the foundations of the scientific
method, in order to assure that they understand the basic terms used in
experiments.
For the most part, the results of the 2012-2013 assessment were remarkably
similar to those found in the previous year.
Overall, 70.4% of students overall met the benchmark last year, while 69.9%
met the criterion minimum score of 12 or higher this year (both round to the
benchmark of 70% overall). This difference of one half of a percent is
certainly not significant.
Last year, 71.93% of seated students met the minimum score or higher, and
this year 73.5% of seated students met this criterion (a slight, but probably not
statistically significant improvement).
The major difference between the two assessments appears in the scores by
online students. Last year, 68.7% of online students met the minimum score or
higher, and this year only 63.44% of students met this goal. However, as noted
earlier, only three online classes were sampled, which may have contributed to
the difference this year.
Consistently over the last several assessments, online students have performed
at a slightly lower level on this assessment than seated students. It may be
desirable to examine the methods used in online courses to instruct students in
the scientific method and in evaluating research data. Either more intensive or
more specific instruction, possibly utilizing multimedia resources if not being
used already, may enhance the performance of the online students relative to
the seated students.
In addition, while the department has met the benchmark goals over the last
three years, there is a desire to see a general increase in the overall scores on
this assessment. Strategies to enhance the instruction of the materials covered,
and to adjust the assessment tool to more adequately evaluate the students'
critical thinking skills are under discussion at this time.
The Psychology faculty have discussed this assessment tool at some length,
and it appears that it may need to be improved prior to the next assessment in
the 2013-2014 academic year. Specifically, some ambiguous items will be
rewritten to reduce potential confusion on the part of students, and two or
23
three questions may be added to the assessment tool to more adequately assess
students' critical thinking skills as opposed to Level One recall memory tasks
such as defining terms. This evaluation and rewriting process is underway.
24
D. ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics
Objective:
70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 6 of 10 questions.
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Hybrid assessed:
Hybrid met benchmark:
Percentage hybrid met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
ECO 251
Economics
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
ECO 251
70 %
6
10
205
164
80 %
133
104
78 %
39
33
85 %
33
27
82 %
Assessment was given to the student in a problem solving format. Questions
primarily involved the Supply & Demand model in economics. Given a predefined scenario, students were asked to come to the correct conclusion when
any number of variables would change.
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.
The economics faculty believe the assessment to be a good one. It 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.
Past observations has led the economics faculty to conclude that a deep
knowledge of economic context isn't needed for success on the assessment. We
have seen no direct correlation between assessment scores and general economic
assignment scores. This speaks to the ability of the student to think through
problem solving scenarios.
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.
This semester a single section was taken for an additional experiment. They were
given a second critical thinking / problem solving assessment. The second
assessment was completely absent of any economics information. This was to
25
test a hypothesis of "would a student who can solve economic problem also solve
general problems?" Results from taken from the same students and regression
analysis was performed to test the hypothesis.
Compare:
Strategies:
The results showed no meaningful results - the slope of the regression line was
statistically zero - showing no relationship between the economic problem
solving skills and general problem solving skills.
Last year faculty tested assessment scores against general economic assignment
scores. We found no statistical relationship in linking general economic
knowledge to assessment scores. This year, the same idea was tested in the
opposite direction. Would we find a link between general problem solving skills
and the assessment? Again, we found no statistical relationship linking the two.
The students - for the most part - appear to have roughly the same skill set as the
previous year's students.
We are considering changing the assessment slightly to look for other ways to
explain variation among assessment scores - such as specific concepts or
vocabulary. This will allow line item analysis to be performed with the
possibility of properly identifying a relationship between assessment scores and
other areas of the class. After which, a focused approach can be made in class
that will positively affect assessment scores.
Overall 78% of students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
79% of seated students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
76% of online students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
The College Goal for Critical Thinking Was Met.
26
General Education Goal Four: 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 2012 are as follows:
Term
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
57
13
48
5
Number Enrolled
1,315
202
1,026
117
Course & Number
COM 110
SPA 112
COM 231
Pilot
COM 120
Pilot
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.
A. COM 110 – Introduction to Communication
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Russo
Communication
Cultural Awareness
COM 110
70 %
7
10
844
730
86 %
736
635
86 %
108
95
88 %
Students completed a 10-question multiple-choice test assessing student
knowledge of cultural differences and similarities relevant to COM course
content. The assessment was given in COM110 sections (54 total sections; 45
traditional, 9 distance). Questions were related to communication/culture and
language, nonverbal, gender, and perception. Students were given an incentive
for successfully completing the assessment in approximately 75% of the
sections. Incentive was dependent on the section and varied from extra credit
points, to stand-alone grade, to extra final exam points. Assessment was
administered after 10/19/2012 and before the end of the semester. 5 sections
27
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
Data:
administered the assessment through Blackboard with a 30 minute time
allotment. Instructors administering the assessment in the classroom determined
optimal time for assessment. (6 total sections were not captured; 4 sections were
not included due to flawed results; 2 sections were not captured due to errors)
A 10-question multiple choice assessment
Overall: Faculty was satisfied that the assessment seemed to reflect a balanced
response to the questions. Due to an error in the revision of questions there was
no "A" response again this year. Faculty discussed revising questions to reflect
an "A" correct response.
Blackboard: Five (5) sections used a timed test in Blackboard which resulted in
86.2% meeting the benchmark. Previous results for administration through Bb
showed a 98% success in online assessment.
Overall: Results were slightly higher overall vs. previous year. This is the 3rd
year using this textbook and instructors have become more familiar with it.
Students have a clear understanding of cultural vocabulary. Informal focus
groups conducted in some sections of COM110 after the assessment was given
indicated that students appreciate that cultural differences are stressed in the
COM110 course.
Online: results were lower (88% vs. 93% yag) which may be as a result of some
assessments being timed this year (in those sections where assessment was
administered online and timed results were 86.2%).
Overall: Faculty recognized that students may lack strength in recognizing the
possibility of more than one correct answer (Q 8--answer is both A&C) and
recommended making that a possible answer for another question.
Overall: Generally students have a good awareness of recognizing culture as an
integral component of effective communication. Text covers culture thoroughly
and engages students in the concept of culture throughout the content. When
assessments were administered online using a timed test (30 minutes) the results
were 86.2%. The timed test seemed to normalize results to show consistency in
response rates for face-to-face (86.3%) and online administration (86.2%).
Students are still aware and there is no significant difference in results when
students are given the assessment online or in seated environment. When
assessment is administered online through Blackboard and timed the results are
consistent with face-to-face results.
Request a more formal discussion regarding the assessment with students upon
completion. Faculty will develop some questions to ask of students (pilot about
10 sections) and capture student responses. Continue to reinforce the purpose of
assessment and cultural awareness as a integral part of the COM110 course with
PT faculty. Revise questions that may require. Continue to use a timed test
when administering through Blackboard.
Faculty and students value the assessment process for this goal.
% meeting benchmark for online: 88%
% meeting benchmark for face-to-face: 86.3%
% meeting benchmark overall: 86.5%
% meeting benchmark when administered via Blackboard: 86.2%
See appendix for complete data
28
B. SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
KOOCHOI
Foreign Languages
Cultural Awareness
SPA 112
70 %
70
100
165
148
90 %
119
106
89 %
46
42
91 %
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.
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 weighs 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 are
10 points. Each answer weigts one point.
The same cultural assessment tool questions and answers are used in both
instructional methods.
For 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.
29
Strengths:
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 cultural awareness. This type of assessment helps focus and narrow a
wide-ranging topic and identify key cultural awareness ideas.
Face to face: Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering
the questions correctly content wise.
Online: Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering the
questions correctly content wise.
Weaknesses:
Overall: Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering the
questions correctly content wise. We believe in both method of instruction,
students are gaining more cultural awareness based on the integration of more
cultural activities.
Face to face: 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%.
Online: 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%.
Learn:
Overall: 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%.
Face to face: We learned that our students are showing their improvement of
gaining awareness of other cultures. Therefore, we can safely assume that the
cultural component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning
outcomes.
Online: We learned that our students are showing the same progress on gaining
awareness of other cultures. Therefore, we can safely assume that the cultural
component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning
outcomes.
Compare:
Overall: 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. Students are
valuing the process.
Face to face: Integrating the cultural section on each test, the percentage of
students who met the goal has improved from last 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 has improved 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 from last year.
30
Strategies:
Face to face: The faculty members will be asked to provide more activities on
areas of culture which were less known by students participating in this
assessment. We will integrate more visual material. To emphasize on pre reading
and post reading activities, Training of new faculty members will emphasize
these cultural aspects, as well.
Online: The faculty members will be asked to assign more online activities on
areas of culture which were less known by students participating in this
assessment. We will integrate more visual material. Training of new faculty
members will emphasize these cultural aspects, as well.
Other:
Overall: 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.
Students continue to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on tasks and 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.
31
C. COM 231 – Public Speaking
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
Data:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Russo
Communication
Cultural Awareness
COM 231
70 %
7
10
199
151
76 %
144
109
76 %
55
42
76 %
Student completed a 10-question multiple choice test assessing student
knowledge of culture as an aspect of Public Speaking course content. This was a
pilot. The assessment was given in 10 randomly selected sections of COM231
(10 total; 8 traditional, 2 distance). Questions were related to
communication/culture, language, and demographic audience analysis. All
assessments were administered in the classroom.
A 10 question multiple choice assessment
Faculty discussed reasons why student just met the benchmark (75.9%). This
could be attributed to the fact that culture is not addressed as overtly in this
course. Faculty discussed revising some questions to make language clearer and
to create more scenario-based questions related to speech effectiveness. Faculty
discussed adding questions related to delivery/nonverbal as this is a primary
focus of course. Students had most difficulty with questions 7, 8, and 9. Results
were comparable for traditional and online (76%), all assessments were
administered in the classroom.
Overall results were satisfying due to the nature of this course where culture is
not as overt as in other communication courses. Faculty feels that students are
aware of the impact of culture on effective public speaking despite it not being a
focus of the course.
Students had difficulty with vocabulary.
Generally students are open to recognizing culture as an integral component of
effective Public Speaking, despite it not being a major focus of the course.
No results. This was a pilot.
Faculty will look at the questions to revise for clarity. Conduct a workshop with
PT faculty to ensure understanding of the process. Administer the assessment to
all sections of COM231 in Fall 2013. Check with publisher about adding a
section to the textbook that specifically addresses culture.
Faculty values the assessment process for this goal and strives to continually
improve the process.
Excel spreadsheet attached with data
Copy of assessment attached
32
D. COM 120 – Interpersonal Communication
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
Data:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Russo
Communication
Cultural Awareness
COM 120
70 %
7
10
62
59
95 %
46
44
96 %
16
15
94 %
Students completed a 10 question multiple choice test assessing student
knowledge of culture relevant to interpersonal communication course content.
The assessment was piloted in all sections of COM120 (3 traditional; 1 online)
Assessment administered in classroom for all sections. Questions were related to
communication/culture and language, nonverbal, and perception. Assessment
was administered after 11/6/12 and before the close of the semester. Each
instructor determines the optimal time for the assessment.
A 10 question multiple choice assessment
Faculty felt that this was an effective measure of cultural awareness for this
course. Theme of culture is pervasive in this course and reinforced in the
textbook.
Students are well informed and aware of the importance of cultural awareness on
effective interpersonal communication.
Faculty to consider revising question #8 as students had difficulty with
vocabulary.
Faculty learned that students are very open to recognizing culture as an integral
part of effective interpersonal communication
No comparison data is available as this was a pilot and the first time assessment
was conducted.
Request more formal discussion with students after the assessment. Capture the
discussion
Continue assessment in all sections of COM120 fall 2013.
Attached excel spreadsheet
Copy of assessment
Overall 85.7% of students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
85.6% of seated students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
86.2% of online students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
The College Goal for Cultural Awareness Was Met.
33
General Education Goal Five: 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 2012 was as follows:
For HIS 131 and SOC 210
Term
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
21
33
Number Enrolled
547
910
Course & Number
HIS 131
SOC 210
A. HIS 131 – American History I
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Wells
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Social/Behavioral Sciences
HIS 131
70 %
12
20
174
167
96 %
136
130
96 %
38
37
97 %
A list of ten (10) 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
34
the approved list of essay questions and administer the assessment under testing
conditions.
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Faculty were asked to give feedback on the Assessment, however, there has not
been time for discovery of the information since the processing of the results.
Faculty will discuss over the next course of division meetings.
Scores were considerably higher than previous years' assessments. Students
continue to produce coherent, analytical responses to essay topics and
demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material presented in the course.
n/a
to be determined
to be determined
to be determined
35
B. SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Felton
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Social/Behavioral Sciences
SOC 210
70 %
2
3
148
141
95 %
51
49
96 %
97
92
95 %
Rubric question
Rubric with three points. Students are to respond to questions in short answer
format.
Assessment Question: A basic assumption of Sociology stresses the relationship
between individuals and society. Describe the relationship and provide an
example of the interplay between self and society.
1 Point: Describe the relationship between the individual and society
1 Point: Demonstrate an ability to apply the concept through sample(s) of the
relationship between self and society
1 Point: The example(s) illustrate an understanding of the relationship between
the individual and society
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Students in online classes responded at a higher rate than seated classes. One
instructor gave assessment as a graded discussion board question. Other
instructors gave the assessment as a test question for both seated and online.
Responses from online students were more in depth.
Students still tend to do better on the part of the assessment that describes the
relationship between the individual and society. Students who are the A and B
students in the class are the same students that fall between the 2's and 3's on the
assessment. Student responses are better in quality compared to last year.
Faculty need to place more emphasis on providing examples on self and the
impact of society. The full time faculty included the assessment as a course
requirement in their syllabus.
This year's assessment had higher results than last year. All assessments were
given as a part of an exam.
Instructors met to review the rubric to see if we need to change the assessment
and to discuss how can we better capture whether the student is actually learning
this information. Possibility of coming up with an uniform time in the semester
to have students complete the assessment. If it is required later in the semester
then students tend to do better.
36
Overall 96% of students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
97% of seated students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
96% of online students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
The College Goal for Behavioral & Social Sciences Was Met.
37
General Education Goal Six: 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 2012 was
as follows:
Term
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
25
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Number Enrolled
575
Course & Number
BIO 110
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Spring
Natural Science
Natural Sciences
BIO 110
70 %
70
100
174
163
94 %
138
128
93 %
36
35
97 %
All sciences use the scientific method as the central tool for undertaking any
scientific work. Student 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.
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.
Our assessment tool also includes 4 additional questions (for a total of 14
questions) that assess the students’ ability to critically think. Because
Scientific Method requires critical thinking, faculty also wanted to be able to
38
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
assess critical thinking across the entire course rather than just in one topic
(Scientific Method). The first 10 questions cover the topic of Scientific
Method and assessment can be done for just that topic. Questions 5-14 (10
questions) all cover the topic of critical thinking within the subject of Biology.
Assessment was done separately for Critical Thinking for this group of
students.
Faculty was pleased with this outcome. Student success is quite good and
improvement in problem areas was also seen. Faculty notice that there was a
decrease in success for the face to face class with the Critical Thinking
assessment (93% vs 89%) but there was no difference in success for online
students (97%) for both Scientific Method and Critical Thinking.
Students were able to recognize the steps of the Scientific Method.
Students continue to have some vocabulary issues. The difference in success
with the Critical Thinking assessment may have been due to students being
required to shift their focus from one topic (Scientific Method) to other topics
of Biology within the same assessment.
Faculty discussions and shared ideas for continuity of vocabulary seems to
have made an improvement in student success.
Improvement was seen in the questions that had given students problems last
year.
Faculty will work together to build a department Scientific Method teaching
tool and problem bank. Since this is the first time the combination assessment
was done, faculty will continue to watch for a pattern for the Critical Thinking
assessment and then determine the best strategy to take.
The College Goal for Natural Sciences Was Met.
39
General Education Goal Seven: 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 2012 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Number of Sections
17
29
8
Number Enrolled
452
869
210
Course & Number
ART 111
MUS 110
HUM 130
A. ART 111 – Art Appreciation
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Jacobs
Last Name:
Fine Arts
Department:
Humanities/Fine Arts
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took place: ART 111
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
143
Assessed:
125
Met benchmark:
87.4 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
82
Seated assessed:
72
Seated met benchmark:
88 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
61
Online assessed:
53
Online met benchmark:
87 %
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Students were asked to submit a Virtual exhibit, including a catalogue essay
Method:
and artwork from at least two different artists.
Students were provided the following rubric:1. Identify a thoughtful theme
Tool:
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
40
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)
Strengths:
- Creativity of overall theme and presentation (10 points)
No difference between seated and online
Faculty believe the assessment is a strong indicator of cultural awareness.
There were virtually no differences between seated and online.
Students seemed to be excited about the assessment.
Weaknesses:
There were virtually no differences between seated and online.
Students struggle with citation.
Learn:
There were virtually no differences between seated and online.
Students were engaged, and created more proficient and interesting exhibits.
Compare:
There were virtually no differences between seated and online.
Faculty continue to believe this is a strong assessment.
Strategies:
There were virtually no differences between seated and online.
Discuss citation methods more thoroughly.
Faculty analysis:
There were virtually no differences between seated and online.
41
B. MUS 110 – Music Appreciation
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Holly Maurer
Music
Humanities/Fine Arts
MUS 110
70 %
70
100
170
135
79 %
124
91
73.4 %
46
44
96 %
10 question multiple choice test, with 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 online settings.
10 question multiple choice test used for all sections.
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.
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 believe 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 95% meeting the goal in contrast to
65% of face-to-face classes. This is a similar result to last year’s scores. When
evaluating which questions were most often answered incorrectly, an
improvement was seen in the number of students who correctly answered
questions of basic definitions than in past years. Several instructors reported
stressing definitions throughout the year.
Although an improvement was seen in both the on-line and traditional classes
with students remembering basic definitions, many students still had more
difficulty with material presented at the beginning of the semester and earlier
periods in music history. Faculty discussed the possibility that since the
assessment is cumulative, students have forgotten earlier material. Faculty
believe that the setting in which the student takes the assessment can influence
scores as on-line students have access to the text.
Retention of material continues to be an issue.
There was a marked increase in scores for on-line students suggesting that the
testing environment contributes to student success.
Faculty were encouraged to continue referencing musical definitions throughout
the semester.
42
C. HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Di Donato
English, Reading & Humanities
Humanities/Fine Arts
HUM 130
70 %
3
5
129
100
78 %
54
46
85 %
75
54
72 %
Essay Question. No differences between online and traditional.
In order to measure objectives and student outcomes, students were asked to
respond to the following 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 DemeterPersephone 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.
In the Fall of 2013, all 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
43
student passed or failed (e.g., between a 2 and a 3 = 2.5), a third grader juried the
score.
Grading Rubric:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
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.
As in the past, the faculty believes the assessment tool is equally well suited for
both traditional and online testing.
It allowed us to see how the student thinks through the process of analyzing the
functions of myth.
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.
Negatively, the assessment tool is not as precise as could be, which is why the
department uses a grading procedure that requires multiple grades for each essay.
As a result, the grading procedure is rather time intensive. We have discussed the
possibility of adjusting this.
Face-to-Face:
Student performance on the assessment in traditional sections this year far
surpassed the performance of traditional students last year (2011 – 53%, 2012 –
85%). In fact, this year’s result was significantly higher than 2010 (70%) as well.
This was unexpected due to the low response rate from two of the traditional
sections. The point system used in those classes was such that the strongest
students, who had earned passing grades prior to the assessment, opted not to
complete the assessment. We assume that those missing essays would have been
among the stronger.
Online:
There is still a noticeable difference in student performance between online and
traditional students, but it is not as pronounced as last year. While some online
sections performed better than others, as is normally the case, the overall
performance of the online students remains in line with previous years’ results
(2011 - 73%, 2010 - 72%).
Overall:
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
44
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
some culturally significant elements in the traditional stories, particularly a
general understanding of sociological and cosmological function.
The same weaknesses, observed in the past, remains a pressing issue. Once
again, some students seem to have difficulty distinguishing mere plot summaries
from the more substantial analysis the assessment seeks to elicit. 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.
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.
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.
See above.
One instructor in the department has developed a tool to walk students through
the essay writing process specific to our course goals. A series of tutorial audio
lectures dealing with the various functions emphasized by different instructors is
being developed as well. The department hopes to pilot the new tools in the fall
to see if they better prepares students for the coming assessment.
Overall 81.4% of students met the Fine Arts benchmark
80.4% of seated students met the Fine Arts benchmark
82.3% of online students met the Fine Arts benchmark
The College Goal for Fine Arts Was Met.
45
General Education Goal Eight: Information Literacy
Goal: Students will effectively use research techniques to identify, select, use, document and evaluate
information sources appropriate to a particular need.
Last Name:
Department:
Goal Measured:
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
Benchmark percentage:
Benchmark minimum:
Benchmark maximum:
Assessed:
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Online assessed:
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Payton
Library
Information Literacy
ENG 111
70 %
7
10
178
121
68 %
0
0
NA
178
121
68 %
18 different sections of online ENG 111 were assessed for information literacy.
We originally started with 10 random sections given to us by Planning and
Research, but some of these sections were combined into larger sections which
we were not aware of, so we got eLearning to add us to a variety of sections and
got the faculty to assign the tutorial and quiz. 403 total students were enrolled in
these classes, but only 184 were assessed.
Students in face-to-face classes were not assessed.
The assessment tool we used was an interactive tutorial (ENG 111 Information
Literacy Tutorial) that was embedded as a link in the chosen online sections and
then the instructor gave the students a 10-question quiz. The librarians created
and deployed the tutorial and quiz in the online sections, but they were not
responsible for assigning them to students or requiring students to take them.
Using an anonymous survey, the faculty were surveyed asking their opinions and
feedback regarding the tutorial.
The librarians piloted this tool in Spring 2012 and had a slightly higher success
rate with the benchmark (74% versus this semester's 67%). The librarians
originally thought having one consistent tutorial embedded in online sections
would make assessment easier (as opposed to using the same tool with in-person
classes where class content varied from class to class). However, it has become
increasingly clear that a tutorial is not the way to assess information literacy,
which is made up of increasingly complex concepts.
Identifying synonyms to keywords for their research; choosing websites where
authors have credentials to back up their claims
Differing between when to use books, articles and the web for getting
background information; using keyword to search for topics instead of full
phrases or sentences; identifying unbiased sources of information; understanding
how citations work.
The faculty have learned how difficult it is to assess information literacy while
not being the teaching faculty for that course.
46
Compare:
Strategies:
The results from the pilot semester (Spring 2012) were better than the last
semester (Fall 2012) but not by much (74% to 67%). The librarians were hoping
that the numbers would increase from the pilot to the random sampling of
classes, but that was not the case. A few reasons for this could include: the
faculty from the pilot were self-selected and thus more committed to making the
assessment succeed; the students in these sections are more motivated because
they have more motivated faculty; the pilot (5 sections) was smaller and thus
easier to track.
Regardless of the current tutorial's weaknesses, it is an improvement from the
2010-2011 assessments in our in-person one-shot sessions, which resulted in
much lower scores (in the range between 55-65%). The consistency of the
current tutorial seems to make a difference, but the numbers are still too low to
be considered successful.
The librarians have determined that assessing information literacy using only a
tutorial and a 10-question quiz is not an effective method of assessment for a
complex concept like information literacy. Before we abandon what we have
(our tutorial) to again try something new (which would be the third assessment in
as many years), we thought we could expand the tutorial within both in-person
and online classes to be just one part of the information literacy assessment.
Librarians are already embedded in a variety of online classes throughout the
semester, and every year this service grows. We propose embedding librarians in
a sample of ENG 111 courses, both in person and online, and having them launch
a series of skills that will assess the variety of information literacy standards.
These tools will include tutorials, lecture captures, pre-tests and discussion
boards to have a more thorough and enhanced instruction of information literacy
throughout the semester. By partnering with the ENG 111 faculty in a semester,
students will have a more accurate and well-rounded understanding of
information literacy concepts.
Other:
We propose doing this same method in our random selection of in-person
sessions, which would be a much more intense experience than our normal (and
not particularly effective) one-shot 75 minute session. Our goal is to mirror
online and in-person student experiences with the library as much as possible.
Continuing to do assessment the way we've done assessment in the past when it's
not successful (although is does improve annually) is counter-productive. It's
good to know each year we make strides, but we need to increase our
commitment to the goal and our partnership to faculty to truly see a difference in
students' information literacy skills. At some point in the near future, we see a
for-credit course (even 1-credit for 8 weeks) that aligns with ENG 111. But in the
meantime, our goal is to increase interaction with students in a more substantial,
modular way than one-shot instruction, or providing a research guide to them.
Fall 2013 will be a way to test that plan.
The College Goal for Information Literacy Was Met.
47