Los Angeles Valley College
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report
Courses and Programs
Discipline:
Anthropology
Department: Anthropology
Program/Course: An 104
Course Title: Laboratory in Human Biological Evolution
Semester/Year: Fall 2014 & Spring 2015
Date report submitted:
SLO Representative:
Department Chair: Rebecca Stein
Rebecca Stein
I. Student Learning Outcome Assessed
Students will be able to evaluate language and communication using an anthropological
perspective.
II. Description of Assessment Method
a. Capstone essay assignment – assignment prompt and rubric below
b. Data was analyzed using the attached rubric. Each student was assigned a score of 0
(Absent), 1 (Poor), 2 (Adequate), or 3 (Excellent) for each of the rubric items. See
rubric below.
III. Description of Sampling Methodology
a.i)
a. Describe the assessment tool (e.g., student
essay, performance, etc.)
b. Describe how the data was analyzed (rubric
elements, checklist, item analysis, etc.).
Attach rubric or checklist if applicable.
*** Please keep all data for at least 3 years.
a. Course Sections - ?
i) Describe the course offering using the table.
ii) Describe how these sections represent the
diversity of students represented in the
course.
b. Faculty - How many faculty (part-time and
Course Sections
# of Sections Offered # of Sections Assessed
Face to Face
1
1
Hybrid
0
0
Online
1
1
Total
2
2
a.ii) The department usually offers 1 section of An104 per semester, rotating between in
person day, evening, and online. We chose to compile data across two semesters to best
represent the breadth of students taking this course.
b. One full time faculty (R. Frank) and one part time faculty (M. Raleigh) regularly teach this
Form Revised Spring 2014
full-time) taught this course? How many
faculty participated in the SLO assessment
process?
c. Students – Describe student enrollment and
assessment using the table.
d. Sampling (If this course offered more than
one section, at least 1/3 of the total # of
students must be assessed) - How was the
sampling process conducted? (e.g., chose
every 3rd student from roster)
IV. Collaborative Review
a. Describe the norming process and how interrater reliability was achieved (if applicable).
b. Describe how the results were reviewed and
analyzed.
V. Assessment Results
a. Describe the relevant findings according to
the criteria set by the assessment tool. (e.g.,
report results according to rubric evaluation
criteria).
b. Define SLO achievement for this course as it
relates to the data presented in part a.
course. M. Raleigh assessed her students at the end of Fall 2014 and R. Frank assessed
her students at the end of Spring 2015. R. Frank compiled the data and prepared this
report.
c.
Student Enrollment
Students Enrolled
Raw #
%
40
59%
Students Assessed
Raw #
%
36
90%
Face to Face
Hybrid
Online
28
41%
26
93%
Total
68
62
91%
d. For both semesters, all students who completed the course and submitted the capstone
essay assignment were assessed.
a. R. Frank and M. Raleigh met in August 2014 to discuss the previous SLO report, the
capstone assignment and grading rubric, and the SLO rubric. Both instructors used the
same capstone assignment and grading rubric. Grading standards were discussed in
relation to the rubric and both faculty had just participated in a norming process for SLO
scoring for An101 earlier that day. Based on the SLO findings in the previous (Feb
2013) assessment, the SLO rubric was modified to reflect the key elements of linguistic
analysis related to the class and the scale was shifted to allow for absent elements.
b. Elements of the capstone rubric were crosswalked to items in the SLO rubric. Student
scores were translated to the SLO 0-3 scale and averaged by rubric element and by
student.
a. On average student’s awareness of how cultural beliefs/practices and personal identity
relate to the context of communication events (rubric element 1 & 2) is very good (avg=2.7).
Students also did a good job of using linguistic vocabulary and theory to describe the
communication being used (avg=2.5).
b. Using an average of each student’s score in the 3 categories, 62 of the 68 students
(91%) achieved an adequate or higher score on the SLO (range: 2.3 – 3.0; 49 of the 62
students were given a score of 3 on all rubric elements).
Form Revised Spring 2014
c. What percentage of students achieved the
SLO?
d. Describe any differences in results between
face–to–face, hybrid, and online students. If
there are no distinguishable different in
outcome achievement, state as such.
VI. How Results were Used for
Course/Program Improvement
a. Describe how the results are going to be used
for the improvement of teaching, learning, or
institutional effectiveness based on the data
assessed.
b. List any additional resources necessary to
implement the improvement plan.
c. Describe how your course aligns to the
Program SLO’s emphasized in this course. (**
Select only the appropriate emphasis
described in the Program Alignment Grid. To
access the program SLO’s http://lavc.edu/slo/programassessment.html/
and/or contact your Department Chair for the
Program Alignment Grid).
c. All of the assessed students had an average score above 2.3, indicating 100% of
students achieved the SLO.
SLO Achievement
Raw #
%
Face to Face
36
90
Hybrid
Online
26
93
Total
62
91
d. There are no obvious differences in the results between face-to-face students and online
student. Online sections tend to retain fewer students through to the end of the semester
than face-to-face sections, but in this class there were similar success rates.
a. These results indicate students are successfully applying the key concepts from this
class. Though the very high number of average scores of a perfect 3 is rather suspect. R.
Frank will discuss with M. Raliegh and department chair R. Stein about the capstone essay
assignment and rubric, and SLO rubric to improve the quality and discriminatory power of
these materials for assessment. Lecture and course work can continue to emphasize and
model the application of theory and vocabulary onto analysis of communication. The
assignment prompt will be modified to ask students to consider the speaker’s culture and
identity more explicitly in their analysis.
b. None needed
c.
General
Education /
Transfer
Reasoning
Skills
Emphasis**
Face to Face
Hybrid
Online
Total
Communication
Skills
m
Global
Awareness
m
M
Raw #
36
%
90
Raw #
36
%
90
Raw #
36
%
90
26
62
93
91
26
62
93
91
26
62
93
91
Social
Responsibility
and Personal
Development
N/A
Raw #
%
Form Revised Spring 2014
d. Describe how results will be shared with
others in the discipline/area.
VII. Comparison to last SLOAC Cycle
Results (if this is the first time the course
was assessed, leave this section blank)
a. Please state the improvement plan that was
included in the report from the previous
SLOAC cycle.
b. What changes were implemented from the
previous SLOAC cycle’s improvement plan?
What changes, if any, were made that were
not included in the improvement plan? What
changes, if any, were made to the
assessment process?
c. How are the results from this SLOAC cycle
similar to or different from the results from the
previous cycle?
d. A copy of the report will be given to the department chair and M. Raleigh. R. Frank will
meet with both to discuss the report and improvements for the capstone assignment and
SLO rubric. The updated course materials will be shared with any instructor teaching the
class and used for future SLO assessment cycles.
a. From 2013:
a. Lecture and course work examples can further highlight key
theories and styles of speech to help students see how to apply
these concepts in their own analyses.
b. The assignment prompt and rubric will be modified to ensure
students consider of speakers’ cultural contexts relate to the scenes
and communication they analyze.
c. The assignment (prompt and rubric) does not ask students to
consider emic and etic perspectives in their analysis, and in the
case of linguistic anthropology and this assignment, is not
necessary. Identification of how speech varies by context and
individual speaker is well represented in the SLO rubric criteria for
Ethnocentric language and concepts. Future SLO assessment will
limit the SLO rubric to four categories, dropping the emic/etic
perspective.
b. Items a. and c. from the 2013 improvement were implemented for subsequent
semesters and this cycle of SLO assessment. Item b. will be implemented following
submission of this report. An additional change made this cycle was to drop a second
category from the SLO rubric: ethnocentric language. The way this rubric item was
phrased did not fit with the idea that all speakers embed their culture and identity within
their communication. In some ways, ethnocentric language is inescapable when
analyzing how others use language. This concepts incorporation into An104, the
capstone assignment, and a revised SLO rubric will need to be discussed. No
significant changes were made to the assessment process, except having two
instructors involved this time around.
c. Results from this cycle are very similar to the results from the previous cycle. Across all
sections students are finishing the class able to evaluate language and communication
from an anthropological perspective, considering context, culture, and personal identity
in the patterns that emerge from conversations.
Form Revised Spring 2014
Insert Rubric or Assessment Tools below:
Capstone Essay Assignment used in all sections for SLO assessment
The goal of this project is for you to analyze language use from one of the following perspectives: a) ethnicity, gender or status, b)
code switching, or c) focal vocabulary. Select 4 scenes, at least 1 minute long, from 2 different TV shows or movies and analyze the
speech within them. You will be graded on two aspects of this assignment.
1. Transcribe the scenes to the best of your ability [incl. speakers, setting, approx. minute in the videorecording, etc.] using the
correct Transcription Symbols (see handout).
2. Write a 5-7 page essay, using MLA formatting, describing one of these topics: language use (gender, ethnicity or class), code
switching, or focal vocabulary. Use anthropological terminology and analysis techniques that we have discussed in class (what is
the scene, who are the participants, etc.)
SLO Rubric for 14-15 Academic Year
“Students will be able to evaluate language and communication using an anthropological perspective.”
Poor (1)
Adequate (2)
Excellent (3)
1. Comprehension of cultural
beliefs and
practices/concepts as they
relate to the context of
communicative interactions
Cultural portrayal includes
several inaccuracies;
important information is
missing; context is not
connected to communication
Cultural portrayal is mostly
accurate; includes relevant
material about the context of
the interaction to the
communication that occurs
Accurately portrays; includes
most or all of relevant
material about the context
and how it affects the
communication that occurs
2. Perspectives – identity and
communication
Does not connect identity of
the speaker and his or her
communication style
Makes some connection
between identity of speaker
and his or her communication
Makes strong connections
between speakers’ identities
and his or her communication
Form Revised Spring 2014
3. Use of appropriate
terminology and theory to
describe the communication
being used
Little to no use of appropriate
terminology and theories;
style
styles
Some use of appropriate
terminology and theories
Consistent use of appropriate
terminology and theories
If an element I absent it receives a score of 0.
Form Revised Spring 2014