Los Angeles Valley College
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report
Courses and Programs
Discipline:
Philosophy
Program/Course:
SLO Representative:
Department: Philosophy, Economics, Jewish Studies
Philosophy 28
Zachary Knorr
I. Student Learning Outcome Assessed
Semester/Year: Spring 2014
Department Chair: Ercument Aksoy
Be able to critically assess the strength of arguments pertaining to
environmental ethics
II. Description of Assessment Method
a. Students were asked to write an argumentative philosophical essay
b. A rubric was used (see attached)
III. Description of Sampling Methodology
a. One course was offered
b. One full-time faculty member taught this course
c. 42 students were enrolled but since only 32 turned in the final paper
only 32 students were assessed
d. n/a
a. Describe the assessment tool (e.g., student
essay, performance, etc.)
b. Describe how the data was analyzed (rubric
elements, etc.). Attach rubric if applicable.
*** Please keep all data for at least 3 years.
a. Course Sections - How many sections of this
course were offered?
If there were more than one section offered –
i) State if the sections were offered in the
morning /afternoon /evening/ online.
ii) How many sections were assessed?
iii) Describe how these sections represent the
diversity of students represented in the
course.
b. Faculty - How many faculty (part-time and
full-time) taught this course? How many
faculty participated in the SLO assessment
process?
c. Students - How many students in total were
enrolled? How many students were
assessed?
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
n/a
V. Assessment Results
Students were assessed in four different areas: Quality of understanding,
Argument, Organization, and Style. In each category, students could receive
assessments of either Excellent, Good, Poor/Needs Improvement, and
Unacceptable. Students receiving assessments of either Excellent or Good
are considered to have fulfilled the measured SLO. The results were as
follows:
a. Describe the norming process and how interrater reliability was achieved (if applicable).
a. Describe the relevant findings according to
the criteria set by the assessment tool. (e.g.,
report results according to rubric evaluation
criteria)
Quality of Understanding: Excellent 8, Good 17, Poor 6, Unacceptable 1 (78%
of students fulfilled SLO)
Argument: Excellent 9, Good 16, Poor 6, Unacceptable 1 (78% of students
fulfilled SLO)
Organization: Excellent 8, Good 17, Poor 5, Unacceptable 2 (78% of students
fulfilled SLO)
Style: Excellent 7, Good 13, Poor 5, Unacceptable 7 (63% of students fulfilled
SLO)
78% of our students fulfilled the SLO in three of the categories. However, it is
clear that we need to improve in the area of style, where only 63% of our
students fulfilled the SLO.
VI. How Results were Used for
a. As stated above, the biggest area of improvement is in the category of
Course/Program Improvement
style. Therefore, next time this class is taught, more time will be spent
a. Describe how the results are going to be used
discussing with students the basics of writing a good paper. In
for the improvement of teaching, learning, or
addition, we will put more emphasis on students writing rough drafts
institutional effectiveness based on the data
and encouraging them to bring them to the instructor for proofreading
assessed.
b. List any additional resources necessary to
implement the improvement plan.
c. How do your assessment findings contribute
to the achievement of your Program SLO’s?
(To access the program SLO’s http://lavc.edu/slo/programassessment.html/
and/or contact your Department Chair for the
Program Alignment Grid).
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)
before turning them in.
b. No additional resources will be required.
c. Philosophy 28 helps our helps our department meet all four of our
program goals: Reasoning skills, Communication skills, Global
Awareness, and Personal Responsibility and Awareness. By
assessing our students ability to accomplish this course SLO, we now
have a better understanding of where we can improve the course in the
future and ensure that a higher percentage of students accomplish
these goals.
d. Results will be emailed to other members of the department and will be
discussed at upcoming department meetings.
This was the first time this course was taught and assessed, so there was no
previous improvement plan.
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?
Insert Rubric or Assessment Tools below:
Assessment Rubric for Philosophy 28
1. Quality of Understanding
Excellent: The essay provides a highly accurate and precise summary of at least one of the major conceptual principles that have guided the
history of western philosophy. The essay includes a complete and developed account of the arguments that have been provided to defend and
develop this philosophical principle. The essay uses appropriate textual support for all of these claims.
Good: The essay contains a fairly accurate and precise summary of at least one of the major conceptual principles that have guided the history of
western philosophy, although some passages could have been better. The essay includes a complete and developed account of the arguments that
have been provided to defend and develop this philosophical principle. However, this account could have been more complete, and while
generally clear, is flawed in at least one respect. The essay uses appropriate textual support for the majority of its claims.
Poor/Needs Improvement: The essay contains a fairly accurate summary of at least one of the major conceptual principles that have guided the
history of western philosophy, but is not precise and contains significant room for improvement. The essay includes at least one of the arguments
that have been provided to defend and develop this principle, but the discussion lacks clarity and several other major arguments have been left out.
The essay also fails to use appropriate textual support for the majority of its claims.
Unacceptable: The essay either contains an inaccurate summary of one of the major conceptual principles that have guided the history of western
philosophy or lacks this summary all together. This summary is imprecise and fails to mention or develop any of the arguments that have been
provided to defend and develop this principle. All of these areas are in need of a great deal of improvement, and the essay fails to use appropriate
textual support for the majority or all of its claims.
2. Argument
Excellent: The essay provides a clear thesis statement that is logically defended and supported by the use of coherent and valid arguments. These
arguments follow one another in a logical progression and each one of them is supported by reasons and argumentation that is clearly grounded in
textual evidence.
Good: The essay provides a clear thesis statement that is logically defended and supported by the use of coherent and valid arguments. These
arguments follow one another in a logical progression, although their construction could have been improved in at least one area. The majority,
although not all, of the arguments are supported by reasons and, in most cases, these arguments are clearly grounded in textual evidence.
Poor/Needs Improvement: The essay has a main conclusion, but this is not stated clearly or precisely in any single thesis statement. This main
conclusion is defended at certain points in the essay, but no coherent or logical argument is presented. Some of the individual arguments presented
in the essay are supported by reasons and argumentation, although the majority of them lack such support. At times the reasons provided are
grounded in textual evidence, although in most cases this textual evidence is lacking.
Unacceptable: The essay contains no thesis statement and does not make any coherent or logical argument defending a position. Arguments
presented in the essay are not supported by reasons and no textual support or evidence is given for any the claims made.
3. Organization
Excellent: There is a concise introduction that clearly explains the structure of the essay and provides an accurate thesis statement. The body of
the essay clearly presents all premises in the argument and accurately defends them using clear and logical argumentation. The essay provides a
conclusion that accurately summarizes the development of the argument and indicates ways in which the project could be expanded in the future.
Good: There is a concise introduction that explains the structure of the essay and provides an accurate thesis statement. The body of the essay
presents most of the premises in the argument in an accurate manner and defends the majority of them using clear and logical argumentation. The
essay provides a conclusion that accurately summarizes the development of the argument but contains no indication of future possibilities.
Poor/Needs Improvement: There is an introduction that explains part of the structure of the essay and provides an inaccurate or incomplete thesis
statement. The body of the essay fails to present a coherent argument for the thesis and does not defend its premises using clear and logical
argumentation. The essay contains a conclusion that fails to summarize the development of the argument and leaves several arguments
incomplete.
Unacceptable: The introduction is either missing or fails to provide an account of what to expect in the essay. The body of the essay follows no
coherent structure and provides no logical defense of any positions expressed in the essay. The conclusion is lacking entirely.
4. Style
Excellent: All sentences are complete and grammatical. All terms are well-defined and all concepts are accurately and completely explained.
Good and clear examples are used to illustrate key points. There is a clear and logical flow from paragraph to paragraph and each section of the
essay fits together to form a coherent whole. Essay has been proofread and contains no spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.
Good: All sentences are complete and grammatical. Most terms are well-defined and most concepts are accurately and completely explained.
Good and clear examples are used to illustrate most key points. There is a clear and logical flow from paragraph to paragraph and most sections of
the essay fit together to form a coherent whole. The essay has been proofread and contains no spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.
Poor/Needs Improvement: A few sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Many terms are poorly defined and most concepts are
inaccurately or incompletely explained. Most key points are not illustrated by good and clear examples. There is no clear and logical flow from
paragraph to paragraph and there is no coherent whole. Essay has not been properly proofread and contains several spelling errors, rhetorical
questions, or slang.
Unacceptable: Many sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Terms and concepts are not defined or accurately explained. There is no
discernible structure to the essay. The essay has not been proofread at all and contains many spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.
5. Creation/Originality
Excellent: The thesis is original, interesting, and relevant to the question or questions being posed. Examples given are relevant, insightful, and
well-used, and previously unexplored ideas and/or alternatives and explored in the essay.
Good: The thesis is interesting and relevant, although not necessarily original. Examples given are relevant and well-used, and the essay explores
alternative positions that have been covered in the course.
Poor/Needs Improvement: The thesis is slightly off topic, obviously true (or false), or not worth writing about. Examples are provided, although
they are not always relevant. The essay mentions alternative positions, but does not explore them in any meaningful way.
Unacceptable: The thesis is completely irrelevant, examples are either not provided or misused, and alternative positions are not even mentioned.