SUNY Canton Campus Response to the GEAR Review
Strengthened Campus-based Assessment (SCBA) of General Education Plan Review
SUNY General Education Assessment Review Group (GEAR) 1
Campus:
Date of Review:
SUNY Canton
June 21, 2006
Criteria:
3.
The measures developed to assess student learning are designed to provide credible evidence of
the extent to which students have achieved the learning outcomes or skills stated in the
objectives.

The measures are reliable, particularly with respect to inter-observer reliability.
The plan meets this criterion for Critical Thinking and Writing (i.e., since Canton is using
the ACT CAAP tests in assessing these outcomes areas.) However, GEAR requires
more information from the campus for this criterion in the assessment of Mathematics,
since its SCBA plan does not address this issue explicitly. GEAR therefore asks the
campus to describe its specific plans for assuring the following: training of faculty in the
use of the rubrics, sustained reliability over time, and ways of resolving disagreements
between observers when such disagreements occur.
Response:
GER 1 Mathematics
Students will demonstrate the ability to:





Interpret and draw inferences from mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables,
and schematics;
Represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically, and verbally;
Employ quantitative methods such as, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, or statistics to solve
problems;
Estimate and check mathematical results for reasonableness; and
Recognize the limits of mathematical and statistical methods.
The learning outcomes will be assessed by course embedded questions on hourly and final
exams for each of the designated math courses. The mathematics department will collect a
random sample (20%) from these exams and employ the rubrics proposed by the “Discipline
Panel in Mathematics – (09/08/05)” as the assessment tool.
Care will be taken by the mathematics department to ensure that sufficient and useful information
will be gathered for this assessment by jointly developing and piloting the exam questions to
address the five student learning outcomes as specified by SUNY. Assessment will be
conducted by members of the mathematics department.
The mathematics department assessment team will conduct a training session on the use of the
rubrics and will establish guidelines for levels of competence according to the SUNY discipline
panel’s rubric levels: “Completely Correct/Exceeding”= 3 points, “Generally Correct/Meeting”= 2
points, “Partially Correct”/Approaching”= 1 point, and “Incorrect/Not meeting”= 0 points (see
attached rubric). The actual grading process will include at least two (2) mathematics faculty
members per exam question with the introduction of additional faculty in cases of disagreement.
Papers will be scored as defined by the rubric and success will be determined per outcome if
70% of participants score 2 or 3.
SUNY Canton will compile and keep percentages to determine changes that should be made to
improve students’ mastery of the outcomes. Analyses and recommended changes will be
completed on the pilots as needed. The mathematics department will devise a plan of action that
ensures changes have been implemented. The mathematics department will collectively continue
to add to the pool of questions for assessment utilizing the state’s rubrics.
Standards and Rubrics for Assessing General Education in Mathematics. Written by the Discipline Panel in Mathematics – (09/08/05)
Revised 11/02/06 to show SUNY Canton’s scoring
Learning Outcome #1: Students will demonstrate the
Learning Outcome #2: Students will demonstrate the ability to represent mathematical
ability to interpret and draw inferences from mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically and verbally.
models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and schematics.
Completely
• The student demonstrates the ability to interpret the
• The student fully understands the mathematical information and employs the appropriate
Correct
variables, parameters, and/or other specific information
representation(s) to display the mathematical information.
(CC)
given in the model.
• The student correctly and accurately employs all the appropriate and required aspects of
• The student uses the model to draw inferences about the
the representation to display the information.
3 points
situation being modeled in a manner that is correct and
• The representation of the given information is correct and accurate. The student uses the
evident.
correct format, mathematical terminology, and/or language. Variables are clearly defined,
• The interpretation(s) and inference(s) completely and
graphs are correctly labeled and scaled, and the representation is otherwise complete as
accurately represent the model or answers the question(s). required.
Generally
• The student demonstrates the ability to interpret the
• The student understands most of the important aspects of the mathematical information
Correct
variables, parameters, and/or other specific information
and employs the appropriate representation(s) to display the mathematical information
(GC)
given in the model. The interpretation may contain minor
with possibly minor flaws such as a simple misreading of the problem or copying error or
flaws.
mislabeling.
2 points
• The student uses the model to draw inferences about the
• The student correctly and accurately employs most of the appropriate and required
situation being modeled in a manner that may contain
aspects of the representation to display the information. The representation is lacking in a
some minor flaw(s).
minor way such as a simple misreading of the problem or copying error or mislabeling.
• The interpretation(s) and/or inference(s) are incomplete
• There is a misrepresentation of the information due to a minor computational/copying
or inaccurate due to a minor flaw, such as a computational error. The student uses mostly correct format, mathematical terminology, and/or language.
or copying error or mislabeling.
Variables are clearly defined, graphs are correctly labeled and scaled, but the
representation is incomplete in some minor way.
Partially
• The student makes no appropriate attempt to interpret the • The student does not fully understand the important aspects of the mathematical
Correct
variables, parameters, and/or other specific information
information and employs the appropriate representation(s) to display the mathematical
(PC)
given in the model due to major conceptual
information with major conceptual flaws.
misunderstandings.
• The student shows some knowledge of how to employ most of the appropriate and
1 point
• The student attempts to use the model to make the
required aspects of the representation to display the information. The representation is
required inference(s) and/or interpretation(s) but lacks a
lacking in a major way.
clear understanding of how to do so.
• The representation(s) show some reasonable relation to the information but contains
• The interpretation(s) and/or inference(s) are incomplete
major flaws. The student uses some correct format, mathematical terminology, and/or
or inaccurate due to a major conceptual flaw.
language. Variables are clearly defined, graphs are correctly labeled and scaled, but the
representation is incomplete in some major conceptual way.
Incorrect
• The student cannot demonstrate an ability to interpret the • The student cannot represent the mathematical information in the representation(s)
Solution
variables, parameters, and/or other specific information
required.
(IC)
given in the model.
• The student completely misinterprets and/or misrepresents the information.
• The student cannot use the model to make the required
• The representation(s) is incomprehensible or unrelated to the given information. The
0 points
interpretation(s) and/or inference(s).
process of developing the representation is entirely
• The interpretation(s) and/or inference(s) are missing or
incorrect.
entirely inaccurate.
• The student’s response does not address the question in any meaningful way.
• The student’s response does not address the question in
• There is no response at all.
any meaningful way
• There is no response at all.
Standards and Rubrics for Assessing General Education in Mathematics. Written by the Discipline Panel in Mathematics – (09/08/05)
Revised 11/02/06 to show SUNY Canton’s scoring (page 2)
Learning Outcome #3: Students will demonstrate the
Learning Outcome #4: Students will demonstrate
Learning Outcome #5: Students will
ability to employ quantitative methods such as,
the ability to estimate and check mathematical results demonstrate the ability to recognize the
arithmetic, algebra, geometry, or statistics to solve
for reasonableness
limits of mathematical and statistical
problems.
methods.
Completely • The student demonstrates a full understanding of the
• The student can estimate and justify a mathematical • Student clearly articulates the
Correct
problem and/or can identify a specific numeric,
result to a problem.
assumptions/simplifications made in
(CC)
algebraic, geometric, or statistical method(s) that is
• The student can articulate a justification for the
developing a mathematical/statistical
needed to solve the problem.
estimate and the estimate has been found using a
model or implementing method(s) or
3 points
• The student uses the method(s) to solve the problem.
clearly defined, logical plan
technique(s).
The plan for the solution is clear, logical and evident.
• The student’s response is complete and accurate.
• Student provides an accurate
• The solution is accurate and complete.
description how the results from the
model might differ from the real life
situation it models.
Generally
• The student demonstrates some understanding of the
• The student can estimate and justify a mathematical • Student articulates most of the
Correct
problem and/or can identify the specific arithmetic,
result to a problem but the estimate or justification
assumptions/simplifications made in
(GC)
algebraic, geometric or statistical method(s) needed to
contains a minor flaw such as a simple misreading of developing a mathematical/statistical
solve the problem.
the problem or computational or copying error or
model or implementing method(s) or
2 points
• The student uses the method(s) to solve the problem.
mislabeling.
technique(s)
The plan for the solution is clear, logical and evident
• The student can articulate a justification for the
• Student provides a generally correct
but is lacking in a minor way such as a simple
estimate but the student’s justification and/or
description of how the results from the
misreading of the problem or copying error.
estimate has been found was lacking in some minor
model might differ from the real life
• The solution is generally correct but may contain a
way
situation it models
minor flaw(s).
• The student’s response addresses all aspects of the
question but is lacking in some minor way.
Partially
• The student demonstrates only a slight understanding • The student can estimate and justify a mathematical
• Student articulates only some of the
Correct
of the problem. The student has difficulty identifying
result to a problem but the estimate or justification assumptions/simplifications made in
(PC)
the specific arithmetic, algebraic, geometric or
contains a major conceptual flaw.
developing a mathematical/statistical model
statistical method(s) needed to solve the problem.
• The student can articulate a justification for the or implementing method(s) or technique(s).
1 point
• The student attempts to use a method(s) that will
estimate but the student’s justification and/or
• Student indicates that the conclusions
solve the problem, but the method itself or the
estimate has been found was lacking in some major
drawn from the model differ from real
implementation of it, is generally incorrect. The plan is conceptual way
life but is unable to articulate the
not evident or logical.
• The student’s response addresses some aspect of the cause(s).
• The solution contains some correct aspects though
question correctly but is lacking in a significant way.
there exists major conceptual flaw(s).
Incorrect
• The student demonstrates no understanding of the
• The student cannot estimate and/or justify a
• Student does not articulate any
Solution
problem and/or he/she cannot identify the specific
mathematical result to a problem.
assumptions/simplifications made in
(IC)
arithmetic, algebraic, geometric or statistical method(s) • The student’s justification is not supported by any
developing a mathematical/statistical
needed to solve the problem.
logic plan.
model or implementing method(s) or
0 points
• The student cannot to use a method(s) that will solve
• The student’s response does not address the
technique(s).
the problem. Little or no work is shown that in any
question in any meaningful way.
• Student fails to realize that the results
way relates to the correct solution of the problem
• There is no response at all.
are not contextually appropriate.
• The student’s response does not address the question
• There was no response at all.
in any meaningful way.
• There is no response at all.

The data to be collected will be representative.
The plan meets this criterion for Critical Thinking and Mathematics. For Writing, GEAR
asks the campus to confirm that courses to be included in the assessment will be
selected randomly and that at least 20% of students enrolled in ENGL 101 and ENGL
102 will be included in the assessment.
Response:
The General Education Committee and/or Subcommittee [to include the Director of Institutional
Research (DIR) and representatives of the Gen Ed Requirements up for review] shall meet as
soon as possible following the semester census date. At least 20% of the Gen Ed approved
classes in the cycle will be selected randomly. The DIR will let the Gen Ed Committee and the
faculty know which classes will be participating within the specific categories. Annually there are
40-45 sections of ENGL 101 and ENGL of 25-28 students each. This will necessitate assessing
8-10 full sections, or 200-280 students to meet the 20% sampling rate.
4.
The plan proposes standards to which student performance relative to the learning outcomes in
the objectives can be compared.
GEAR requests more information regarding this criterion. For Critical Thinking and Writing, the
campus should provide specific cut-offs that will be used in defining “exceeding, meeting,
approaching, and not meeting” standards for the ACT CAAP tests (i.e., using standard
deviations).
Response:
For Writing and Critical Thinking, the campus has decided on the following levels:
< 0.60
0.60 - <0.70
0.70 - <0.80
0.80 – 1.00
= not meeting
= approaching
= meeting
= exceeding
For Mathematics, GEAR assumes that, in the utilization of the SUNY rubrics for Mathematics, the
campus will adhere to the following standards that correspond to the mathematics discipline
panel’s rubric levels: “Completely correct” = “Exceeding,” “Generally correct” = “Meeting,”
“Partially correct” = “Approaching,” “Incorrect solution” = “Not meeting.” In addition, GEAR
requests clarification regarding Canton’s strategy for using the Mathematics rubrics. Specifically,
it is not clear why “averages” are being used and how they will be computed (e.g., based on how
many of assignments?).
Response:
See previous response under number 3 for Mathematics Department’s revised plan to
accommodate rubrics.
6.
The plan describes mechanisms for assessing the campus academic environment and
considering possible relationships between academic assessment results and the campus
academic environment.
The plan meets this criterion in that the campus states its intentions to use the National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE).2 GEAR does request more information regarding the campus’
planned strategy for relating NSSE results to student learning outcomes data.
Response:
The Division of Student Affairs and the Provost’s Office have used the results of the SOS survey
in a multitude of ways. Student Affairs shares the data with staff and uses the results to help with
benchmarking for each department, to understand better how students view their services and for
Middle States Accreditation. The Provost’s Office presents the data to the Deans of each School
and discusses the results. The group then uses this information to help set the goals and
objectives for the University and for each School. As with student affairs, the results help inform
the Deans and Provost as to the campus climate and satisfaction levels with the University.
Additionally, survey results on the instructional side have been used for Middle States
Accreditation and for Assessment in the Major. Plans are in place to present the data from the
most recent SOS with faculty and staff.
In receiving the results of the NSSE survey, SUNY Canton will take the same steps listed above
to make sure the information is widely shared. We will also look at how SUNY Canton’s ratings
compare to our peer schools. If we are falling behind our peer schools in a certain area, we will
work to determine the cause of the problem and find ways to improve in this area. We will also
look at our higher ratings to determine what we are doing well, and how we can sustain the
positive results.
7.
The assignment plan has been reviewed and approved through the appropriate curriculum and
faculty governance structures.
Although the campus’ plan was developed by its General Education Assessment Committee, the
proposal does not address the issue of campus-wide governance approval. Therefore, GEAR
request confirmation of such approval (or an explanation why such approval is not needed.)
Response:
The General Education Committee was (until 2005) a governance committee. This arrangement
did not function effectively. The Provost appointed one of the Deans to chair the General
Education Committee through the planning phases. The Committee will present to the general
Faculty Assembly and the information from assessment will be shared on the faculty governance
web site.
8.
Additionally, the time table submitted for February 15, 2006 needs revision as follows:
2006/2007 remains the same
2007/2008 Basic Communication, Critical Thinking, Arts, Foreign language, NSSE
2008/2009 Math, Natural Science, Humanities, Information Management