January 12, 2012
Fall 2011 GE Assessment Results
Evaluating Expectations:
Extent to which students met expectations:
19.10%
Extent developed
Always/frequently
8 / 13
# courses
evaluated
21
11.81%
27.65%
11.11%
30.95%
1/4
4/3
2/3
1/3
5 (12 sections)*
7 (8 sections)*
5
4
GE Area
Exceeds
Meets
Does not meet
Overall
38.21%
42.69%
A: Nat Sci
B: Soc Sci
C: Human
D: Lang & Rat
44.73%
30.59%
36.67%
36.90%
43.46%
41.67%
52.22%
32.14%
*8 sections of BIOL 1 were evaluated.
2 sections of ECON 1 were evaluated.
Instruments Used:
Writing question involving an analysis of measurement errors involved in calculating gas mileage from
some given measurements of miles and gallons pumped.
A portion of the final course project was a written interpretation of results and a proposed geologic
history. This section required students to analyze/interpret resources and data, to apply scientific
reasoning, and to apply scientific concepts to analyze relationships. Students scoring at the highest
level were able to analyze data, to synthesize information from field data and outside sources, and to
both conceptualize and communicate the details of a scientific model.
A semester project report covering three plant propagation assignments and the on-going
documentation of progress over the semester, as well as a concluding statement of the student's
observations for the semester as a whole. This course assignment was scored according the the
existing 3-point rubric for this assessment. The assignments were to propagate from cuttings: a house
plant (stem cutting), a succulent (stem or leaf cutting), and a non-succulent leaf cutting. The semester
reports included a data table and short answers to be completed over the course of the semester, and
two brief essay questions to be completed at the conclusion of each of the three assignments. The GE
Assessment rubric was applied to the reports as a whole.
A 2 paragraph essay question on an in-class final exam scored according to the 3-point rubric. The
question was: 1. In recent years, there have been many claims concerning the health benefits of green
tea. Suppose you read a news article reporting on a scientific study that concluded drinking green tea
causes weight loss. The article provides the following information about the scientific study: (25 points)
• People were weighed at the beginning of the study • People were asked to drink two cups of green
tea every day for 6 weeks. • People were weighed at the end of the study. • People who drank green
tea for six weeks lost some weight by the end of the study. • It was concluded that green tea is helpful
for weight loss. Given only this information, critically analyze this experiment. A. Do you think the
conclusions are valid? Why or why not? B. What kind of changes would you make to this experiment in
order to improve the scientific quality of the results?
Historically-based primary-source research paper.
A multiple paragraph short essay question was asked on the in-class final exam and scored according
to the 3-point rubric. The question was: Answer as completely as you can in 2 to 4 paragraphs. Use
specific detailed information from the class to answer the question. "What is the PATRIOT Act? When
did it pass? What are the main provisions of the PATRIOT Act? What civil liberties issues does it
confront? What are some arguments in favor and against? Do you feel that it strikes the wrong balance
in pursuing security? Or, do you feel that it presents a realistic picture of what freedoms we can
reasonably have in modern America?"
A presentation detailing a proposed new business venture utilizing the marketing mix concept of
product, price, promotion and distribution.
If you read an article in the popular press regarding facebook increasing depression how would you
critically analyze such a claim?
One area of the rubric for the second paper of the semester was used to measure critical thinking. The
assignment was to design, and then explain and justify the reasoning behind, a hominin phylogenic
diagram. The students' ability to think critically, analyzing at least one component of the project in
detail, was originally scored on a scale of 0-10. This was converted to a 3-point scale (8-10=3, 5-7=2,
0-4=1).
Students carried out a semester-long study in which they conducted ethnographic research on a local
microculture. They previously turned in a project proposal, a consent form signed by the members of
the microculture, and an outline and thesis statement. The assignment scored was the final project;
one of the 10 areas scored on the grading rubric was "providing an in-depth analysis of one of more
aspects of your research and/ or the microculture that you studied utilizing anthropological terms and
concepts." Students were given this rubric at the start of the semester, as well as longer instructions
regarding the assignment. The grading rubric allowed for a score of 0-10 in this area. 0-4 was scored
as a "1" here; 5-7 was scored as a "2" here; 8-10 was scored as a "3" here.
Final essay exam.
A paper involving a critical analysis of film reviews (some of which were primary source reviews from
the time of the film's release).
Four one-paragraph essay questions on in-class mid-term exam scored according to the 3-point rubric.
The questions were: 1. ¿Crees que Pablo Neruda fue un gran poeta? Explica, razona y justifica tu
respuesta. 2. En el "Poema XX" de Pablo Neruda, ¿qué personificaciones hay y qué efectos
transmiten? ¿Por qué? Explica tu respuesta. 3. Explica con tus propias palabras este verso: "Es tan
corto el amor y es tan largo el olvido." 4. ¿Qué sentimientos provoca el poema en los lectores? ¿Crees
que es un buen poema? ¿Por qué? Explica, razona, y justifica tus respuestas?
During your study of Spanish this semester, which grammatical differences between Spanish and
English have surprised you? List at least two major grammatical differences and explain how errors
related to them could cause misunderstandings when communicating with Spanish speakers.
Final Critique Assignment: Orally evaluate and critique 3 selected drawings from each student
participant. Drawings are critically evaluated for their expressive content and for their formal and
technical qualities.
Historically based, primary-source research essay.
I used their third Opportunity (Exam) in this course. This exam required students to recognize the
difference between rational expressions and equations and apply appropriate techniques to them.
Students also needed to solve applications using rational equations. I took their percentage on the
Opportunity. Those with 90 or above exceeded expectation, those with 70-89 met expectation, and
those below a 70 did not meet expectation.
Critique Essay. Objective of this written assignment is the critical evaluation of classroom speeches.
Students are asked to establish a set of common criteria to assess the effectiveness of their peers'
speeches. I assess their critiques based upon how clearly, logically, and well-supported their arguments
are, on the clarity of their thinking, on the organizational structure of their essays, and on mechanics.
The grading rubric I use is more heavily weighted on the evaluation of their arguments.
An exercise embedded on the fourth classroom exam where points were awarded based upon correct
and complete mathematical statements which ultimately led to the solution of the exercise. The
exercise was "Suppose that a certain radioactive isotope has an annual decay rate of 15.3%. How
many years will it take for a 443 gram sample to decay to 227 grams? Round your answer to the
nearest hundredth.
Comments
The assessment works pretty well to get students thinking more about errors in basic measurements.
Some of the more subtle aspects like how large relative errors can greatly effect the error of a result are
commonly missed by students. This particular assessment has gone through some earlier changes on
my part and is already pretty well developed in that sense at this point in time. In the future I am
planning to create some of my own reference material for students on error analysis which might
improve results on this assessment.
Using a capstone project worked well in providing a detailed overview of student performance.
However, the results paralleled my observations of which students were capable of critical thinking
throughout the course. In other words, did these students acquire an ability for critical thinking during
the semester, or did they demonstrate an ability that they had prior to enrolling in the course?
The rubric was useful, as each of the four categories is distinct - this made it easy for me to evaluate
complex reports quickly in the context of the GE course assessment.
Our group of 4 instructors agreed that it would be helpful in the future for participating faculty to
exchange 2 or 3 examples from each scoring categories to ensure that all faculty are scoring similarly.
One example of a "1" was read out loud (we were on CCCConfer) and we all agreed on that one. It's
difficult to coordinate 4 faculty, especially when 1 teaches only in the evenings and another is at the
Mendo campus. However, we did manage to pretty easily agree on the assessment tool, how to
administer it and how to score it.
I think this is a great start, with future conversations about the process we should be able to refine. I am
curious to see the results from my colleagues.
The assessment process was clear and effective.
Survey monkey was easy to fill out. This assesment process went smoothly for me.
Comments were provided with first ANTH 3 section. My only additional comment is that, while this
assignment best measures the critical thinking ability attained in the course by those who complete it,
those who don't turn in the paper can't be measured although it is hoped that some critical thinking skills
were gained.
This took even less time to do than I thought it would! We should provide better instructions about what
materials need to be saved and it would be handy to have the section numbers on a pull-down menu. It
would be nice to make this system available/ customizable by faculty to streamline degree/ certificate
level assessment work, as well as course-level work...but I guess that's why we're checking out
assessment software that could do this sort of thing and keep track of the data.
The process worked very well. The students accepted a separate test on culture and reading in addition
to the grammar mid-term exam.
I think that this Survey Monkey instrument for capturing this data is very convenient, and that Justine
Shaw and Pete Blakemore did an excellent job organizing this assessment activity. I was happy to
participate.
I assign two critiques each semester -- one evaluating the introductory speeches and one evaluating the
informative speeches. The critique I used for this GE assessment exercise focused on the informative
speeches. I think that if I'd asked them to critique the persuasive speeches instead I may have been
more clearly able to assess their critical thinking skills as they related to evaluating the arguments
presented in their persuasive speeches.
I think that embedding the assessment in the exam was helpful. The class that this current GE
assessment took place had gone through two learning outcomes assessments earlier in the semester
where the handout clearly identified it as an assessment. I did not tell these class about the
assessment until I handed the graded exam back to the class.