Report of General Education Assessment
2014 - 2015
General Education Committee 2014 – 2015
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
Yanessa Page – 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
Carl Arrington – Information Technology
Roschella Stephens – Health Sciences
Terri Manning - Institutional Research
Denise Wells – Institutional Effectiveness
Krys Swartz – Institutional Effectiveness
1
Contents
General Education Goals and Courses Used for Assessment during the 2014-2015
Academic Year .......................................................................................................................................4
General Education Assessment Procedure ..............................................................................................5
2014-2015 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 ........................................................................................14
General Education Goal Three: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving .........................................16
A.
BIO 110, CHM 131, CHM 151, PHY 110 –Critical Thinking ...................................... 16
B.
ENG 112 – Argument-Based Research ......................................................................... 20
C.
PSY 150 – General Psychology ..................................................................................... 21
D.
ECO 251 & ECO 252 – Economics ............................................................................... 23
E.
CIS 110 – Introduction to Computers ............................................................................ 24
General Education Goal Four: Cultural Awareness ...........................................................................25
A.
COM 110 – Introduction to Communication ................................................................. 25
B.
COM 231 – Public Speaking ......................................................................................... 26
C.
COM 120 – Interpersonal Communication.................................................................... 27
D.
SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II ................................................................................. 28
General Education Goal Five: Social and Behavioral Social Sciences...............................................31
A.
HIS 111 – World Civilizations I .................................................................................... 31
B.
SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology............................................................................ 32
General Education Goal Six: Natural Sciences ....................................................................................34
General Education Goal Seven: Humanities/Fine Arts ........................................................................38
A.
ART 111 – Art Appreciation ......................................................................................... 38
B.
MUS 110 – Music Appreciation .................................................................................... 40
C.
HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture ............................................................................. 41
General Education Goal Eight: Information Literacy ........................................................................44
APPENDIX ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal One: Communication ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
Oral Communication .......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2
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, CHM 131, CHM 151, PHY 110 –Critical Thinking ..... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
B.
ENG 112 – Argument Based Research ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.
PSY 150 – General Psychology ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
D.
ECO 251 & ECO 252 – Economics ................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
E.
CIS 110 - .........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Four: Cultural Awareness ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
COM 110 – Introduction to Communications ................Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.
COM 231 – Public Speaking ..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.
COM 120 – Interpersonal Communication.....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
D.
SPA 112 – Intermediate Spanish ....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Goal Five: Social and Behavioral Science ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.
HIS 111 – World Civilizations I .....................................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 2014-2015 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 CHM 131
understanding and action.
CHM 151
PHY 110
ENG 112
PSY 150
ECO 251
ECO 252
CIS 110
Cultural Awareness – Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural COM 110
differences.
SPA 112
COM 231
COM 120
Social / Behavioral Sciences – Students will demonstrate an HIS111
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.
CHM 131
CHM 151
PHY 110
Humanities / Fine Arts – Students will demonstrate knowledge of the MUS 111
humanities and critical skills in assessing cultural/artistic merit and HUM 130
significance.
Information Literacy - Students will effectively use research techniques
to identify, select, use, document and evaluate information sources
appropriate to a particular need.
4
ENG 112
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
2014-2015 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary
Result
70% score 4 on all
parts of rubric
ENG 111
64% of students met minimum qualification
67% of seated students scored 3 or better
53% of online students scored 3 or better
70% score 3 of 5
each of 3 goal areas
MAT 115 and MAT
161
70% of students met each of three goal areas
68% of seated students met each of three
goal areas
79% of online students met each of three
goal areas
BIO 110, CHM 131,
CHM 151, PHY 110
- 70% score 70% or
above
BIO 110, CHM 131, CHM 151, PHY 110 –
80% of students score 70 or better
77% of seated students scored 70 or better
90% of online students scored 70 or better
ENG 112 – 70%
score 2 of 2 on
rubric
ENG 112 –70% of students scored 2 of 2
69% of seated students scored 2 of 2
77% of online students scored 2 of 2
PSY 150 - 70% score
12 or better
PSY150 –74% of students scored 12 or better
81% of seated students scored 12 or better
70% of online students scored 12 or better
ECO 251 & 25270% of students
score 6 or better
ECO – 74% of students scored 6 or better
69% of seated students scored 6 or better
84% of online students scored 6 or better
CIS 110 – 70% score
7 of 10 or better
CIS 110 – 73% of students scored 7 or better
74% of seated students scored 7 or better
79% of online students scored 7 or better
Overall –75% of students met the benchmark
74% of seated students met the benchmark
79% of online students met the benchmark
6
Met
NOT MET
MET
88% of students scored 3 or better
86% of seated students scored 3 or better
92% of online students scored 3 or better
MET
Objective
70% score 3 of 5 on
rubric
COM 110,COM 120
and COM 231
MET
General Ed Goal Area
1. Oral Communication Students will effectively
communicate orally by
demonstrating the ability
to locate, critically
evaluate, and present
information.
2. Written Communication –
Students will effectively
communicate in writing
by demonstrating the
ability to locate, critically
evaluate, and present
information.
3. Mathematics – Students
will apply mathematical
concepts and skills to
analyze, manipulate, and
interpret quantitative
data.
4. Critical Thinking /
Problem solving –
Students will
demonstrate the ability to
identify, analyze,
question, and evaluate
content as a guide to
understanding and action.
COM 110 –84% of students scored 7 or better
84% of seated students scored 7 or better
82% of online students scored 7 or better
SPA 112 - 70% score
70 or better
SPA 112 - 83% of students scored 70 or better
76% of seated students scored 70 or better
96% of online students scored 70 or better
6. 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.
70% meet objective
HIS 111 - 12 of 20
on rubric
Overall –85% of students met the benchmark
84% of seated students met the benchmark
86% of online students met the benchmark
HIS 111 –91% of students scored 12 or better
92% of seated students scored 12 or better
89% of online students scored 12 or better
7. Natural Sciences –
Students will
demonstrate
comprehension of the
major steps of the
scientific method.
8. Humanities / Fine Arts –
Students will
demonstrate knowledge
of the humanities and
critical skills in assessing
cultural/artistic merit and
significance.
70% score 70% or
above
SOC 210 - 2 of 3 on
rubric
SOC 210 –87% of students scored 2 or higher
91% of seated students scored 2 or better
87% of online students scored 2 or better
Overall –89% of students met the benchmark
92% of seated students met the benchmark
87% of online students met the benchmark
91% of students scored 70% or higher
89% of seated students scored 70 or better
97% of online students scored 70 or better
ART 111- 70% score
70 or above
ART 111 –97% of students scored 70 or above
96% of seated students scored 70 or above
98% of online students scored 70 or above
MUS 110 - 70%
score 70 or above
MUS 110 –63% of students scored 70 or above
61% of seated students scored 70 or above
79% of online students scored 70 or above
HUM 130 – 70%
score 3 of 5 on
rubric
HUM 130 - 85% of students scored 3 or higher
75% of seated students scored 3 or better
87% of online students scored 3 or better
Overall –79% of students met the benchmark
71% of seated students met the benchmark
89% of online students met the benchmark
7
MET
COM 120 - 79% of students scored 70 or better
87% of seated students scored 70 or better
71% of online students scored 70 or better
MET
COM 231 - 94% of students scored 70 or better
93% of seated students scored 70 or better
100% of online students scored 70 or better
MET
COM 110
COM 231
COM 120
70% score 7 of 10
points
MET
5. Cultural Awareness –
Students will
demonstrate knowledge
of cultural differences.
Pilot results:
70% score 70 or
above
8
ENG 112 –81% of students scored 7 or more of
10 points
83% of seated students met the benchmark
78% of online students met the benchmark
MET
9. 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.
Three communication courses were selected for the assessment with the following
enrollments in the Fall 2014:
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Number of Sections
56
4
50
Number Enrolled
1,355
97
1,227
Course & Number
COM 110
COM 120
COM 231
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
White,
Linda
Last Name:
Communication
Department:
Oral Communication
Goal Measured:
COM 110, COM 120, COM 231
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
3
Benchmark minimum:
5
Benchmark maximum:
201
Assessed:
176
Met benchmark:
88 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
152
Seated assessed:
131
Seated met benchmark:
86 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
49
Online assessed:
45
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 92 %
Method:
Twenty-three out of 114 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 full-time and part-time Communication
9
Tool:
faculty, traditional and online 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 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 2015 - 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 231 was not included for assessment due to
theft from vehicle)
Student speeches were assessed using the Oral Communication Rubric.
Faculty the rubric developed and revised by COM in spring 2014. The
rubric focuses on three criteria (Organization, Content and Delivery).
Each criteria was detailed in the rubric. Scores were averaged to
determine the overall score.
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)
Organization:
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
A conclusion that restates the central idea; summarizes main points;
and uses an effective concluding statement which motivates the
audience.
Content:
Focused, logical and coherent development of information; use of vivid,
accurate language; good use of repetition to reinforce key ideas,
establish speaker credibility
Content which develops main ideas using appropriate supporting
material - examples, statistics, personal experience
Appropriate citation of sources to support content
Delivery:
Use of vocal variety in rate, pitch and volume in order to maintain and
heighten audience interest; effective pronunciation and articulation;
lacks inarticulates
Confident physical stance; eye contact addresses the entire audience;
complementary gestures that demonstrate enthusiasm
10
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Use of extemporaneous style, effective use of notes; well-polished
delivery
No distinction was made between seated and online classes when
reviewers assessed presentations. They were identified by course.
What tool did you use? (Please include any differences between seated,
online, or hybrid course or state that there were no differences.)
Faculty noted no differences related to assessment tool for seated or
online classes.
Faculty commented that they were more confident of assessment when
using the revised rubric. It was agreed that after two years with this
rubric, faculty are satisfied and view this as an improvement.
We will continue to suggest that COM classes have designated speaking
areas with built-in recording equipment.
It was noted that in the years since the assessment process began,
faculty agree that overall improvement can be seen in student
speeches.
Strengths noted this year were better delivery skills which include more
extemporaneous/conversational delivery, better citation of research
sources, improved research sources
At the same time, it was also noted that students do still struggle with
the following:
developing introductions with strong attention getters
transitions
inconsistency in citation of sources
topic selection in COM 110 classes
excessive use of video clips
delivery with PowerPoint
development of good PowerPoint
We noted inconsistencies in student presentations, while speeches
have improved, not all students are excelling but are more adequate.
Students who are engaged with their topic tend to do better work.
Scores were a bit higher but there are inconsistent results between
sections so we do not find the difference due to improvement?
1. Distribute Assessment data and report to all COM faculty (full and
part time) explaining the process, results and importance of General
Education assessment process.
2. Chairs will continue to reinforce expectations for consistent
assignments when reviewing syllabi, when communicating with part
time faculty and as part of regular classroom observations.
3. Continue to pursue online site to house resources for part time
faculty.
4. Explore feasibility of conducting Gen Ed workshop to be planned by
full time faculty for part 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 2014
was as follows:
Term
Fall 2014
Number of Sections
150
Number Enrolled
3,719
Course & Number
ENG 111
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Page
Last Name:
English, Reading & Humanities
Department:
Written Communication
Goal Measured:
ENG 111
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
4
Benchmark minimum:
4
Benchmark maximum:
151
Assessed:
97
Met benchmark:
64 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
121
Seated assessed:
81
Seated met benchmark:
67 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
30
Online assessed:
16
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 53 %
In order to measure objectives and student outcomes, students were
Method:
asked to choose one of the topics 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, an
appropriate closing, and meet standards of correctness.
Students chose one of the following topics: Describe a risk that paid off.
Tool:
What do you believe is the main purpose of obtaining a college degree?
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
has supporting sentences that gave reasons/details/facts ___ ___ The
12
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
paragraph meets standards of correctness. Would this paragraph have
scored a C or better? ___yes ___no
Seated students would have been limited to time in class; online students
may not have had the same time constraints
Some faculty believe that this particular method of assessment for
ENG111 is not sufficient for measuring the extent to which students
should be capable of communicating in writing by the time they
complete ENG111. Others believe that it does a good job assessing basic
paragraph writing.
Some feel that it is a good measure of students' ability to develop basic
paragraphs, which is key to writing good essays. In addition, instructors
do not "grade" their own students for this assessment, reducing the
possibility of bias in the assessment.
There are still concerns as to whether the tool effectively measures
grammar and mechanics. The subjective nature of grading writing was
also concern in terms of assessing student writing. The assessment is not
a “regular” part of instructors’ syllabus or planned activities and some
instructors feel rushed or that they have to interrupt their planned
activities for the assessment.
The assessment reveals a range in skills in students' writing. There was
not enough evidence to suggest that online scores were lower than the
scores of seated students simply as a result of the courses being online.
Given that students online were not time-bound as were students in
seated classes, the expectation was that online students might score
higher. It might be beneficial to assess more online courses in the future.
Some faculty said that there has been a noticeable decline in students'
skills over the last year or two, so the results of the assessment were not
surprising. This decline is reflected in the assessments over the last three
years. Other instructors were concerned that the assessment still gives
only a snapshot of an aspect of ENG111 that may not be significant and
that we would need to assess substantive student work (like an essay) to
get a better picture of what students are capable of.
Recommend that all ENG111 instructors begin assessing an entire essay
and that all full-time English faculty be involved on a rotating schedule
as “readers” for the assessment. The tool for the assessment should be
changed to reflect the move towards using an essay (the research essay
that all ENG 111 instructors currently use for the core competency
assignment) and the following rubric:
Yes No
____ ___ The essay has a clear thesis statement.
____ ___ The essay contains multiple paragraphs that support the main
idea with
reasons/details/facts.
____ ___ The essay stays on topic.
____ ___ The essay effectively incorporates and cites relevant sources.
____ ___ The essay meets standards of correctness.
Would this essay have scored a C or better? ____yes ____no
The benchmark was not met for this assessment.
The Written Communication Goal Was NOT Met.
13
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 each of the 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 2014 were as
follows:
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Number of Sections
12
31
Number Enrolled
281
982
Course & Number
MAT 115
MAT 161
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Bradham
Last Name:
Mathematics
Department:
Mathematics
Goal Measured:
MAT 115, MAT 161
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
60
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
408
Assessed:
284
Met benchmark:
70 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
345
Seated assessed:
234
Seated met benchmark:
68 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
63
Online assessed:
50
Online met benchmark:
79 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
15 Multiple Choice Questions on Final Exam. All classes had to be tested
Method:
in a proctored environment. Therefore there were no differences.
Mastery on each of 3 goal requirements. Students must have 60% of the
Tool:
questions correct on each of the 3 parts.
The mathematics full and part time faculty believe the assessment is a
Faculty analysis:
14
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
strong tool for measuring the three goals accurately. Students who show
mastery of the 3 goals on the assessment also are shown to have a high
pass rate for the course.
The first goal is the ability of a student to analyze quantitative data. This
goal has students to view data in different formats such as tables or
formulas or to know the definitions of terms. This is the strongest goal for
the MAT 161 students who passed at 88%.
The second goal requires students to have the ability to manipulate
quantitative data. Both courses had successful results with this goal.
However, this was the strength for the MAT 115 class with a pass rate of
90 percent.
The third and often times the most difficult goal for students is the ability
to interpret quantitative data. In this goal students are expected to use
more applied real world problems. The students are also expected to be
able to understand the meaning of the resulting answers. Once again both
classes were successful with this goal as well. MAT 115 had a success
rate of 89% which increased from the previous year.
MAT 161 online students seem to perform stronger on all three goals over
the face to face students in this course.
Whereas the MAT 115 online vs. face to face students seem to perform at
a much closer success rate.
MAT 161 seated sections had the most difficulty with the second and
third goals with having the pass rates at about 79%. Again this is above
our benchmark. Therefore even though these were the most difficult
goals, the students still showed mastery in both.
Even though the MAT 115 students had a high success rate, it still shows
that problems dealing with financial math and Venn diagrams can be
difficult for students.
Mathematics education is moving towards more applied word problems
involving real life scenarios. As math education continues to evolve in
this way, these are still the areas that students need continued practice.
Students are being required to use higher level, critical thinking skills to
solve problems in both Mathematical Models and College Algebra.
The previous year, the College Algebra scores were higher for all three
goals in the seated and online classes. One of the factors we believe may
have contributed is the change in required math courses this past year.
Many students are no longer needing the MAT 161 and therefore are
taking other requirements. Many of the students in this course are either
students who should be towards the end of their program or students who
may have needed to repeat this course before the course is to be phased
out.
Both MAT 115 and MAT 161 will no longer be offered in Fall 2015.
Both of these courses are evolving into new courses that are trying to
have students work on more real life math concepts through discovery
and lab/group work. The new courses will continue to have students look
into more applied problems and push them to use more critical thinking
skills in the future.
Even though the MAT 161 and 115 courses will no longer be available to
students, I still believe the data that we have received from the Gen Ed
assessment will continue to help us improve the new courses that have
been developed. The three goals that are assessed in these two courses are
still goals that need to continue to be met in the math courses along with
the emphasis on real world math.
The College Goal for Mathematics Was Met.
15
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, CHM 131, CHM 151, PHY 110, ENG
112, PSY 150, ECO 251, and ECO 252.
During the Fall 2014 term, course enrollments for BIO 110, ENG 112, PSY 150 ECO 251 were as
follows:
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Objective:
Number of Sections
22
3
20
5
54
65
22
12
39
Number Enrolled
513
70
475
119
1,268
1,825
575
374
1,439
Course & Number
BIO 110
CHM 131
CHM 151
PHY 110
ENG 112
PSY 150
ECO 251
ECO 252
CIS 110
70% of students will meet minimal standard set for Critical Thinking.
A. BIO 110, CHM 131, CHM 151, PHY 110 –Critical Thinking
To measure the goal, the following objective was set:
Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal standards for Critical Thinking as 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 2014-2015
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Goal Measured:
BIO 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
16
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:
170
148
87 %
82
69
84 %
88
79
90 %
A series of 10 multiple choice questions were developed that continued
from the Scientific Method assessment. These questions allowed students
to move from the scenario of developing their own scientific experiment
to applying their ability to think through discipline based questions.
A 10 multiple choice question assessment was given to all students
(seated and online). ** 3 of the 4 online sections were assessed in the lab
classroom
Pros and Cons to the tool: Students were already in a 'scientific
thinking’ mode as they continued through this assessment.
Students had different scenarios in each question to consider.
Faculty continue to see the trend of online scores higher than face to face
students. There was much improved overall scoring from last year: from
77.7% to 87.1%
This increase may have several factors involved: different student
population, different faculty assessing the sections, varied student science
backgrounds and less variation in dates when students were assessed.
Although online students scored higher than seated students, 3 of the 4
sections were assessed the same as the seated students.
Changing wording and questions for this assessment helped student
understanding and ability to show what they had learned. Although there
will always be the faculty and student variability, placing the assessment
closer to the end of the semester for all students reduced the variability in
scores due to practice skills and accomplished learning.
Online students continued to score better than seated students. This year,
however, faculty saw a slight reduction in scores for the online students
(93.7% in 2013 compared to 89.77% in 2014). The gap between online
students and seated students was less this year. There was a 11.9%
difference in 2013 compared to a 5.62% difference in 2014.
Faculty will continue to work with modeling and teaching scientific
thinking and will plan on giving the assessment at the end of the semester.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Goal Measured:
CHM 131, CHM 151
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
242
Assessed:
17
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:
187
77 %
193
143
74 %
49
44
90 %
A series of 10 multiple choice questions were developed that continued
from the Scientific Method assessment. These questions allowed students
to move from the scenario of developing their own scientific experiment
to applying their ability to think through discipline based questions.
A 10 multiple choice question assessment was given. It was the same
assessment given to both seated and online students. Online students
scored higher than seated students, but this percentage difference could be
due to sample sizes.
Pros and Cons to tool:
Students were already in a 'scientific thinking' mode as they continued
through this assessment.
Students had different scenarios to consider.
Students met faculty expectations. The number of questions were changed
for this year's assessment. Online students continue to score better than
the seated students.
Students overall scored better than last year with a continued trend of
better online student scoring over seated student scores.
The increase in scores over last year may be due to less variation in dates
when students were assessed. All students were assessed in late October
to early November.
Some difference in learning could be due to varied student science
backgrounds. Those students who have taken other science courses may
have more ability to think critically.
The number of problematic questions reduced from 5 to 4 questions this
year. There was a smaller increase in assessment scores for the seated
students: 72% passing in 2013 compared to 74.09% passing in 2014.
There was a bigger increase in assessment scores for the online students:
85.6% in 2013 compared to 89.8% in 2014.
Faculty will continue to work with modeling and teaching scientific
thinking. Faculty will be encouraged to plan on giving the assessment at
the end of the semester.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Goal Measured:
PHY 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
86
Assessed:
18
Met benchmark:
Percentage Met Benchmark:
Seated assessed:
Seated met benchmark:
Percentage seated met benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
65
76 %
86
65
76 %
A series of 10 multiple choice questions were developed that continued
from the Scientific Method assessment. These questions allowed students
to move from the scenario of developing their own scientific experiment
to applying their ability to think through discipline based questions.
A 10 multiple choice question assessment was given to all students (no
online students were assessed).
Pros and Cons to tool:
Students were already in a 'scientific thinking' mode as they continued
through this assessment.
Students had different scenarios to consider.
Faculty were partially pleased with student results. Although questions
were reworded and changed completely, students still struggled with 4 of
the questions on the assessment. The score met the benchmark but was
lower than last year's scores.
Some of the possible reasons for lack of improvement:
different student population
varied student science backgrounds
"fear" of physics
There were no online students assessed. A good number of students were
able to apply their knowledge.
Although wording and questions changed, the core ability to apply
knowledge and thinking skills is still a challenge. (no online students
assessed)
Rewording of questions and changing of questions was hoped to
eliminate confusion for students. At this point, the results are not showing
that faculty have identified where the confusion or lack of skill is
specifically.
Last year 86% of students (all seated students) passed the assessment with
4 questions that were common challenges. This year 75.58% of students
(all seated students) passed the assessment with 4 questions that were
common challenges.
Faculty will continue to work with modeling and teaching scientific
thinking. They will continue to search for better or different wording to
questions that may help students understand what is being asked of them
in their application of knowledge.
Faculty will plan on giving the assessment at the end of the semester.
BIO 110, CHM 131, CHM 151, & PHY 110 Totals
Overall 80% of students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
77% of seated students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
90% of online students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
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.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
West
Last Name:
English, Reading & Humanities
Department:
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Goal Measured:
ENG 112
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
203
Assessed:
143
Met benchmark:
70 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
168
Seated assessed:
116
Seated met benchmark:
69 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
35
Online assessed:
27
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 77 %
We reviewed argument/research essays to evaluate skills.
Method:
We used a critical thinking rubric to analyze these essays.
Tool:
Assessment tool needs to change because the course is changing for Fall
Faculty analysis:
2015. We have a new rubric that accurately reflects outcomes and will
apply it next year.
Online students were strong this year due to some Blackboard initiatives
Strengths:
(rubrics, in-line grading) also utilized Online Tutoring.
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Face-to-Face students were sharing more complex topics.
Challenging course for online students to grasp. Seeing a difference in
skill set for ENG 112 students.
Again, difference in skill set. Students are not willing to utilize resources
such as the Academic Learning Center.
We are interested in seeing how our new course is going to provide more
guidance and opportunities for faculty to pursue own interests.
This year's assessment numbers were better, but we feel that the numbers
will be even better next year due to faculty excitement for the new
course.
Our rubric is changing and we are going to do more training for FT and
PT instructors to align outcomes and curriculum goals.
20
C. PSY 150 – General Psychology
Objective: 70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 7 of
10 questions.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Helms
Last Name:
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Department:
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Goal Measured:
PSY 150
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
60
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
161
Assessed:
119
Met benchmark:
74 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
53
Seated assessed:
43
Seated met benchmark:
81 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
108
Online assessed:
76
Online met benchmark:
70 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
Ten Question Tool based on a fictitious experiment investigating the
Method:
efficacy of providing early reading instruction to kindergarten students to
prepare them for first grade. One group received reading instruction, the
other did not. Dependent variable was first grade reading scores.
Assessment consisted of ten questions:
First four questions focus on general scientific method, and count 5 points
each
The next two questions focus on analysis of data, and count 10 points
each
Final four questions involve evaluative critical thinking, and count 15
points each
Total possible points: 100. Benchmark is a grade of 60 or higher.
This grading system was implemented this year to reduce confusion over
the meaning of grades on the assessment.
No differences between seated and online courses.
Ten Question Tool based on a fictitious experiment investigating the
Tool:
efficacy of providing early reading instruction to kindergarten students to
prepare them for first grade. One group received reading instruction, the
other did not. Dependent variable was first grade reading scores.
No difference between seated and online courses.
Faculty were generally satisfied with the assessment tool, which was
Faculty analysis:
altered from previous years in two ways:
1: Two questions were added that tasked students on higher levesl of
Bloom's Taxonomy.
2: Grading was changed to reflect a 100 point range, rather than the
previous grading system. This 100 point system helped prevent student
confusion regarding the outcome of the test.
As in previous years, students demonstrated significant strengths in
Strengths:
21
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
analysis/interpretation components of the assessment process, indicating
critical thinking skills consistent with higher levels of Bloom's
Taxonomy.
No significant differences between seated and online courses.
As in previous years, students demonstrated some difficulty with
terminology and research processes. There was significant variation from
section to section, but overall students had difficulty labeling different
components of research (independent versus dependent variables, for
instance). No real differences between seated and online course sections.
Most faculty learned that students do appear to have developed sufficient
analytical and interpretive skills to determine what the outcomes of
research imply, while they still have some difficulty identifying the
mechanical components of that research. No real difference between
seated and online courses.
Results from this year were somewhat improved over results from 20132014 academic year. This appears to be largely attributable to the changes
made in the assessment tool this year that emphasized critical thinking
and analytical/interpretive skills (the actual focus of the assessment)
rather than on memorization of research terminology. This appears to
apply to both seated and online course sections.
Given the diversity of the psychology teaching faculty, and the fact that a
Gen Ed assessment will not be conducted in the 2015-2016 academic
year, it is unlikely that the results of this assessment will produce a
systemic change in the overall department-wide approach to teaching
psychology, to the extent that such an approach exists (or doesn't exist)
already. Each individual instructor will take from these results either
endorsement of their approach to the course material, or an indication of a
need for change in the emphasis on specific topics in future course
sections. Traditionally, results of the Gen Ed assessments have not
produced significant department-wide changes in teaching methods.
22
D. ECO 251 & ECO 252 – Economics
Objective: 70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 6 of
10 questions.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Taylor
Last Name:
Economics
Department:
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Goal Measured:
ECO 251, ECO 252
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
6
Benchmark minimum:
10
Benchmark maximum:
465
Assessed:
344
Met benchmark:
74 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
320
Seated assessed:
222
Seated met benchmark:
69 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
145
Online assessed:
122
Online met benchmark:
84 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
All sections were assessed with a 10 question assessment. The majority of
Method:
the questions are scenario based questions the students must think through
to come to a proper conclusion.
The assessment was identical for all classes assessed.
Same as above
Tool:
The faculty analysis and discussions focused on the persistent gap
Faculty analysis:
between face-to-face and online classes. In previous semesters, faculty
have speculated on the differences and attempted to test the differences.
These small tests were met with little success. Failure to substantially
explain the performance gap between the delivery methods had led to new
conclusions. Newer faculty (i.e. new eyes on the problem) suggest it may
be a selection-bias problem. Online students know they must be selfmotivated and are able to search and find answers more efficiently. This
may lead to higher test results.
The online students performed well. As discussed above, the faculty
Strengths:
perceive a work ethic gap in the online sections. This leads to better
results as they are able to use the book without being hand-held through
the process.
The face-to-face students usually require a bit more hand-holding through
Weaknesses:
the materials. Even when presented with an open-book/open-note
assessment, the face-to-face students performed worse in what would
otherwise be identical circumstances.
The face-to-face students may require a bit more attention to close the
Learn:
performance gap relative to the online sections.
Overall results were about the same and was not statistically different.
Compare:
The online vs face-to-face gap has existed for a few semesters.
The current strategy has been placed on hold until we see what the new
Strategies:
23
assessment will be in the future as the goals are going through a
transformation.
E. CIS 110 – Introduction to Computers
Objective: 70% of students enrolling in CIS 110 will score a 70% or higher on the
combined average of unit performance from Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Access
course units.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Arrington
Last Name:
Information Technology
Department:
Computer Skills/Critical Thinking
Goal Measured:
CIS 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
7
Benchmark minimum:
10
Benchmark maximum:
203
Assessed:
149
Met benchmark:
73 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
72
Seated assessed:
59
Seated met benchmark:
82 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
131
Online assessed:
90
Online met benchmark:
69 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
Used An Average of Unit Performance from Word, PowerPoint, Excel,
Method:
and Access course units
SimNet
Tool:
Faculty Approved of Results
Faculty analysis:
Easy to administer, doesn’t disrupt normal course activity
Strengths:
There could be more summative assessment
Weaknesses:
SimNet has produced better course performance than previous tool, SAM
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Overall 75% of students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
74% of seated students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
79% of online students met the Critical Thinking benchmark
The College Goal for Critical Thinking Was Met.
24
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 2014 are as follows:
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Objective:
Number of Sections
56
50
4
9
Number Enrolled
1,355
1,227
97
210
Course & Number
COM 110
COM 231
COM 120
SPA 112
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
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Russo
Last Name:
Communication
Department:
Cultural Awareness
Goal Measured:
COM 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
7
Benchmark minimum:
10
Benchmark maximum:
819
Assessed:
686
Met benchmark:
84 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
747
Seated assessed:
627
Seated met benchmark:
84 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
72
Online assessed:
59
Online met benchmark:
82 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
Students completed a 10 multiple choice question test assessing
Method:
knowledge of cultural similarities and differences relevant to
communication course content. Given in 48 total COM110 sections (42
traditional, 6 distance). First short session sections were not assessed and
4 other sections due to faculty error or non-participation. Questions were
related to communication/culture and language, nonverbal, gender, and
25
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
perception. Students were given an incentive in 25% of sections. (It is
becoming increasingly difficult to capture this information). Incentive
ranged from extra credit points, to stand alone quiz, extra points on exam.
Assessment was administered after 10/20 and before the close of the
semester. Assessments administered online were timed.
A 10 question multiple choice assessment
Overall results were lower overall vs. yag. Overall 83.8 (2014)vs. 86.7%
(2013), Since 2012 results have exceeded 83% meeting benchmark.
Faculty recognized that students may lack strength in recognizing the
possibility of more than one correct answer (Q8-answer is both A&C)
Generally students are open about recognizing culture as an integral
component of effective communication.
Results overall were lower vs. yag. Overall 83.8 (2014)vs. 86.7% (2013).
Online student scored slightly lower than traditional seated classes (81.9%
vs. 83.9%). Online student scored 7% lower than yag. This may be due to
an increase in sections assessed (4 sections 2013 vs. 6 sections in 2014)
Change Question #8
Faculty and students value the assessment process for this goal
B. COM 231 – Public Speaking
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2012-2013
Russo
Last Name:
Communication
Department:
Cultural Awareness
Goal Measured:
COM 231
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
7
Benchmark minimum:
10
Benchmark maximum:
155
Assessed:
146
Met benchmark:
94 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
136
Seated assessed:
127
Seated met benchmark:
93 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
19
Online assessed:
19
Online met benchmark:
100 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
Students completed a 10-question multiple choice test assessing student
Method:
knowledge of culture as an aspect of Public Speaking course content. The
assessment was given in 10 randomly selected (8 f to f, 2 OL-combined).
Questions related to communication/culture, language, and demographic
audience analysis. Assessments for traditional classes were administered
in the classroom; online they were administered online.
A 10-question multiple choice assessment
Tool:
Faculty was satisfied with results (overall +10% vs. yag). 94.2% met
Faculty analysis:
benchmark vs. 84.9% met benchmark yag. No changes were made to the
26
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
assessment BUT the benchmark was "7" in 2014 vs. 8 in 2013. This was
due to an error on the assessment. This change in benchmark still yielded
improved results. 100% of students completing the assessment online met
the benchmark.
Overall results are satisfying and improved since yag due to the nature of
this course where culture is not as overt as in other COM courses.
Assessment results show that students are aware of culture as an aspect of
all types of communication including COM231.
Students continue to have difficulty with vocabulary. Faculty is not
always communicating if there is an incentive to complete the assessment
successfully--so capturing this information has been challenging.
Generally students are open to recognizing culture as an integral
component of effective Public Speaking, despite not being a major focus
of the course. Situational or scenario-based questions continue to show
improvement in scores because it is modeled how they are learning the
concept of culture in the course from a practical standpoint.
Scores improved vs. yag +9.3% vs. YAG (Overall)
+10.6% vs. YAG (Face to face)
Strategies:
+11.1% vs. YAG (online)
Faculty will revise questions if necessary--Gen Ed assessment is on hold
for next year--no assessment will be given.
C. COM 120 – Interpersonal Communication
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Russo
Last Name:
Communication
Department:
Cultural Awareness
Goal Measured:
COM 120
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
7
Benchmark minimum:
10
Benchmark maximum:
62
Assessed:
49
Met benchmark:
79 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
31
Seated assessed:
27
Seated met benchmark:
87 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
31
Online assessed:
22
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 71 %
Students completed a 10 multiple choice question test assessing student
Method:
knowledge of culture in the context of Interpersonal Communication.
The assessment was given in all sections (4 total-2 traditional seated and
2 online sections).
a 10 question multiple choice assessment
Tool:
27
D. SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Koochoi
Last Name:
Foreign Languages
Department:
Cultural Awareness
Goal Measured:
SPA 112
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
155
Assessed:
128
Met benchmark:
83 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
104
Seated assessed:
79
Seated met benchmark:
76 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
51
Online assessed:
49
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 96 %
Students need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding through a
Method:
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
Tool:
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 weights 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 (multiplechoice) based on authentic cultural readings. The total points for the
assessment tool is 10 points. Each answer weights one point.
Our faculty was not so surprised by the results of face-to -face classes
Faculty analysis:
because we changed some questions. We believe that students needed a
little more challenge. But for 2014-2015 we met the Cultural Awareness
goal.
Face-to-face: Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by
Strengths:
answering the questions correctly content wise.
Online: Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by
answering the questions correctly content wise.
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
Weaknesses:
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%.
28
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
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%.
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 were pleased to note the Cultural Awareness Goal was
met. We learned that our students did not show their improvement of
gaining awareness of other cultures compared to last year in term of
percentage. But in terms of knowledge we learned that our students are
gaining more awareness of other cultures.
Therefore, we can safely assume that the cultural component of our
courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning outcomes. It was
also noted that online classes selected were taught by full time faculty.
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.
Overall: We learned that our students are gaining significant awareness
of other cultures. It was noted online students are performing somewhat
better than students seated in class. Therefore, we can safely assume that
the cultural component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired
student learning outcomes.
Face-to-face: Integrating the cultural section on each test. Changing
some questions with a little more difficulty the percentage of students
who met the goal has decreased somewhat 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
slightly 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 decreased
somewhat from last year due to the changing of questions with a little
more difficulty in face-to-face classes. For distance classes the
percentage of students who met the goal has slightly improved from last
year.
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.
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.
29
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.
Overall 85% of students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
84% of seated students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
86% of online students met the Cultural Awareness benchmark
The College Goal for Cultural Awareness Was Met.
30
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 2014 was
as follows: For HIS 131 and SOC 210
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Number of Sections
35
50
Number Enrolled
889
1,386
A. HIS 111 – World Civilizations I
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Wells
Last Name:
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Department:
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Goal Measured:
HIS 111
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
75 %
Benchmark percentage:
12
Benchmark minimum:
20
Benchmark maximum:
194
Assessed:
177
Met benchmark:
91 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
159
Seated assessed:
146
Seated met benchmark:
92 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
35
Online assessed:
31
Online met benchmark:
89 %
Percentage of online met
31
Course & Number
HIS 111
SOC 210
benchmark:
Method:
Tool:
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
(HIS 111) - Students were given an essay exam in a testing situation.
Instructors noted the testing situation for each section reviewed.
Instructors were allowed to choose from (10) pre-approved prompts
that reflected the goals of Behavioral & Social Sciences.
TBA - Faculty has not met to discuss.
TBA - Faculty has not met to discuss.
TBA - Faculty has not met to discuss.
TBA - Faculty has not met to discuss.
TBA - Faculty has not met to discuss.
TBA - Faculty has not met to discuss.
Since our Assessment results came in late, we are still meeting about
the outcomes and discussing the results.
B. SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Felton
Last Name:
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Department:
Social/Behavioral Sciences
Goal Measured:
SOC 210
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
2
Benchmark minimum:
5
Benchmark maximum:
164
Assessed:
143
Met benchmark:
87 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
22
Seated assessed:
20
Seated met benchmark:
91 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
142
Online assessed:
123
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 87 %
Rubric Question
Method:
Rubric with three points. Students are to respond to questions in a short
Tool:
answer essay format
Seated class scores were higher than non-seated classes. The majority of
Faculty analysis:
classes selected were on line classes, In the on line classes the
assessment was given as an assignment. The class that had the highest
scores was the result of the instructor assigning the assessment as a paper
assignment worth 20% of their final grade. One instructor included the
assessment as a test question. Student scores were lower than those who
completed it as a separate assignment.
The students who scored two and above had a better understanding of
Strengths:
what was being asked and contained reflection of their own personal
experiences. Some good examples were provided and related to
sociological terms, concepts and definitions. Online student responses
were better than last year more in depth.
For both on line and the seated classes the writing has improved. Most of
Weaknesses:
the responses were submitted in an essay format. Another observation:
32
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
students focused more on how society impacts the individual rather than
giving examples of the relationship between the individual and society.
Faculty also expressed in their teaching of this information that more
time should be spent on showing students how the individual relates to
society.
When assessments are required as part of an exam results are better.
Faculty need to emphasis through examples as to how the individual
impacts society. By including the assessment as a part of the syllabus the
expectations are laid out and students know what to expect. Instructors
are now aware of the importance of focusing on the assessment
throughout the semester. They have also agreed that when given as an
assignment. It allows students the time to prepare more thoughtful
responses to the assessment.
Faculty will continue to access the best way of administering the
assessment to students. Having it completed as an assignment has shown
an increase in student scores
Overall 89% of students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
92% of seated students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
87% of online students met the Behavioral & Social Sciences benchmark
The College Goal for Behavioral & Social Sciences Was Met.
33
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 2014 was as follows:
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Number of Sections
22
3
20
5
Number Enrolled
513
70
475
119
Course & Number
BIO 110
CHM 131
CHM 151
PHY 110
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
BIO 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
170
Assessed:
160
Met benchmark:
94 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
82
Seated assessed:
75
Seated met benchmark:
91 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
88
Online assessed:
85
Online met benchmark:
97 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
A scenario was given to students that required them to design an
Method:
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.
The seated sections were given a paper/pencil test. 3 of the 4 online
sections were given the same paper/pencil test during their lab classroom
time. One online section was given the same test to complete online.
A 10 question multiple choice test was given to all students using the
Tool:
same 'story problem' scenario.
Students were required to only recognize the steps of the Scientific
Faculty analysis:
Method. This does not allow students to defend their thought process as
they designed their experiment. Multiple choice does not allow for partial
credit of knowledge or understanding. However, requiring students to
write out an answer may cause more stress for students. The tendency for
some students would be to give up before they even started.
Biology faculty were pleased with student results.
Students were well prepared to identify steps of the Scientific Method and
Strengths:
34
did quite well in designing their experiment. There was little difference
between the seated students (91.5% passing) and the online students
(96.6%).
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
Faculty had adjusted the vocabulary on this new version of the assessment
and found students did better. Faculty are not all convinced that the
administering of the assessment gives true and accurate results.
Some of the increase in scores could be due to varied student science
backgrounds and less variation in dates when students were assessed.
The adjustment in vocabulary has helped in this year's assessment. The
overall passing increased significantly (from 79.7% in 2013 to 94% in
2014). There was more increase in scoring in the seated classes. The
increase seen for seated students: 75.7% in 2013 to 91.46% in 2014.
Online students continued to have better scores. Their increase was less
significant: 91.8% in 2013 to 96.59% in 2014. The number of problematic
questions reduced from 3 to 2.
Discussion will continue in administering the assessment so that all
students have equal time and access to materials.
Faculty will continue to work with modeling and teaching scientific
thinking.
Faculty will be encouraged to plan on giving the assessment at the end of
the semester.
Another possibility for the much improved scores this year may be due to
a different student population this year, different faculty assessing the
sections and the amount of attention placed on practicing scientific
thinking.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
CHM 131, CHM 151
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
242
Assessed:
215
Met benchmark:
89 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
193
Seated assessed:
167
Seated met benchmark:
87 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
49
Online assessed:
48
Online met benchmark:
98 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
A scenario was given to students that required them to design an
Method:
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.
A 10 question multiple choice test was given in a 'story problem' scenario
Tool:
to all students (online and seated).
35
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Students had only to recognize the steps of the Scientific Method. This
does not allow students to defend their thought process as they designed
their experiment. Multiple choice does not allow for partial credit of
knowledge or understanding. However, requiring students to write out an
answer may cause more stress for students. The tendency for some
students would be to give up before they even started.
There were a couple of questions that gave students some problem, but
faculty felt that they were valid questions.
Faculty were pleased with all student results. Seated students did well
(86.53%). Online students scored even higher (97.96%). This variance
may be due to online delivery allowing students to "Google" answers.
The questions that were problematic for students were considered valid
and good questions. It is hoped that students will build their skills as time
progresses.
Students did well on the assessment. They are learning to think
scientifically and be able to identify the Scientific Method.
The same questions were problematic in both years but faculty feel that
these are valid questions and are not ready to make adjustments to the
questions. The scores from last year to this year are almost identical.
Discussion will continue to devise a way to deliver assessments for all
students (seated and online) in the same online manner and/or find a way
to prohibit online students from being able to "Google" answers.
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Spring
Last Name:
Natural Science
Department:
Natural Sciences
Goal Measured:
PHY 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
86
Assessed:
80
Met benchmark:
93 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
86
Seated assessed:
80
Seated met benchmark:
93 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
A scenario was given to students that required them to design an
Method:
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.
A 10 question multiple choice test was used. This assessment contained a
Tool:
scenario that required students to design an experiment using the
Scientific Method. There were no online students assessed this semester.
Faculty were pleased with student results. Several questions were
Faculty analysis:
rewritten for this year's assessment. Students scored better.
Students were able to identify the parts of the Scientific Method. (no
Strengths:
online students assessed)
There were 2 questions that students found problematic that were basic to
Weaknesses:
Scientific Method.
Some of the possible reasons for seeing these better scores and student
Learn:
36
Compare:
Strategies:
understanding could be: different student population, more attention was
placed on Scientific thinking, and changing of wording and questions. (
no online students assessed)
Faculty had rewritten several questions for this year's assessment. The
number of problematic questions reduced from 4 to 2. There was
significant increase from last year's scores: 85% in 2013 compared to
93% in 2014(no online students assessed).
Faculty will continue to work with students on the scientific thinking
process.
Overall 91% of students met the Natural Sciences benchmark
89% of seated students met the Natural Sciences benchmark
97% of online students met the Natural Sciences benchmark
The College Goal for Natural Sciences Was Met.
37
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 2014 were as follows:
Term
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Fall 2014
Number of Sections
28
43
8
Number Enrolled
714
1,235
288
Course & Number
ART 111
MUS 110
HUM 130
A. ART 111 – Art Appreciation
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Jacobs
Last Name:
Art
Department:
Humanities/Fine Arts
Goal Measured:
ART 111
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
107
Assessed:
104
Met benchmark:
97 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
57
Seated assessed:
55
Seated met benchmark:
96 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
50
Online assessed:
49
Online met benchmark:
98 %
Percentage of online met benchmark:
Students completed a Virtual Exhibit via PowerPoint or Word, including
Method:
a thematic statement + 10 images. There were no differences between
seated and online.
Students were provided the following rubric: 1. Identify a thoughtful
Tool:
theme 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
38
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
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 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)
- Creativity of overall theme and presentation (10 points)
This assessment is a valuable tool in perceiving how much cultural
awareness students can convey. Performance is consistent in both online
and face-to-face classes.
When students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far
more engaged in the project.
Students have improved regarding citation, though this continues to be
an issue in some areas.
Reinforces the idea that when students can relate cultural studies to their
own lives, they are far more engaged in the project.
N/A
TBD
We are concerned that the majority of classes are taught by part-time
instructors, and the data has been very difficult to collect at times. Two
courses did not report at all, and one course gave incomplete
information. A fourth course from the list was cancelled.
We need strategies to encourage instructors to comply....
39
B. MUS 110 – Music Appreciation
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Maurer
Last Name:
Music
Department:
Humanities/Fine Arts
Goal Measured:
MUS 110
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
178
Assessed:
113
Met benchmark:
63 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
154
Seated assessed:
94
Seated met benchmark:
61 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
24
Online assessed:
19
Online met benchmark:
79 %
Percentage of online met
benchmark:
10 question multiple choice test, with questions chosen by faculty to show
Method:
basic knowledge of musical terms, styles and historical significance of
music. Assessment administered at the end of the semester in both faceto-face and on-line settings.
10 question multiple choice test.
Tool:
The assessment is seen as appropriate for both on-line and traditional
Faculty analysis:
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
Strengths:
from the latter half of the course; including material about more wellknown 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 79.2%
meeting the goal in contrast to 53.24% of face-to-face classes. This is the
first year the goal has not been met that I know of.
Many students still had more difficulty with material presented at the
Weaknesses:
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.
Learn:
Faculty discussed the fact that the goal was not met this year and
Compare:
suggested several possible reasons. We have had an increase in the
number of part-time instructors who have never administered the
assessment and perhaps did not stress the definitions used in the
assessment. Also, it could be a fluke since this is the lowest score in many
years.
Faculty were encouraged to continue referencing musical definitions
Strategies:
throughout the semester.
We were able to get results from all but one instructor this year, a marked
Other:
improvement from the five missing sections last year.
40
C. HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Di Donato
Last Name:
English, Reading & Humanities
Department:
Humanities/Fine Arts
Goal Measured:
HUM 130
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
3
Benchmark minimum:
5
Benchmark maximum:
168
Assessed:
143
Met benchmark:
85 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
24
Seated assessed:
18
Seated met benchmark:
75 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
144
Online assessed:
125
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 87 %
Essay Question. No differences between traditional and online.
Method:
In order to measure objectives and student outcomes, students were
Tool:
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.
41
Faculty analysis:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Grading Rubric:
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.
The main drawback is the amount of work it takes to grade the essays,
many of which end up being 2 to 3 page papers. On the positive side it
allows 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 favorably with respect to communicating 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. The faculty
believes the assessment tool is equally well suited for both traditional
and online testing.
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.
Online:
This year the online student performance was stronger than every
preceding year, and surpassed the student results in the traditional class
assessed.
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 some culturally significant elements in the
traditional stories, particularly a general understanding of sociological
and cosmological function. This year, as was the case last year, we
observed that more students were grasping the pedagogical function of
myth.
Online:
Online performance surpassed the results of past years.
Overall:
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
42
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
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.
Students seem able to think though the essay with the help of the
worksheet we developed to aid them in preparation. This was
implemented last year, and the overall results have been consistent.
The improvement we saw last year with the implementation of the
worksheet seems to have been duplicated this year. This may speak to
the effectiveness of the new tool.
We are continuing the use of the worksheet tool which helps walk
students through the essay writing process specific to our course goals.
Overall 79% of students met the Fine Arts benchmark
71% of seated students met the Fine Arts benchmark
89% of online students met the Fine Arts benchmark
The College Goal for Fine Arts Was Met.
43
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.
Students were selected from ENG 112 courses in order to assess the Information Literacy goal.
Objective:
At least 70% of students will score 70% or higher on the assignment where
students have to evaluate two of their sources for their research paper.
Enrollments for fall 2014 were as follows:
Term
Number of Sections
Fall 2014
54
Number Enrolled
1,268
Course & Number
ENG 112
Reporting for General Education Results
Reporting Year 2014-2015
Payton
Last Name:
Library
Department:
Information Literacy
Goal Measured:
ENG 112
Course(s) in which assessment took
place:
70 %
Benchmark percentage:
70
Benchmark minimum:
100
Benchmark maximum:
135
Assessed:
110
Met benchmark:
81 %
Percentage Met Benchmark:
99
Seated assessed:
82
Seated met benchmark:
83 %
Percentage seated met benchmark:
36
Online assessed:
28
Online met benchmark:
Percentage of online met benchmark: 78 %
Evaluation worksheet of two sources supposedly used in a research
Method:
paper and those worksheets were graded with a rubric.
Students were given two worksheets to fill out that to evaluate two
Tool:
sources that were attached to a writing assignment (research paper). One
was an evaluation checklist, and one was a further evaluation of one of
their sources asking to cite the source in MLA, give their thesis
statement, speak to the author's credentials, and evaluate why they chose
that source.
Librarians believed the tool to be an ineffective measure of a student's
Faculty analysis:
information literacy skills. Every instructor has a different research
assignment, making consistency challenging, if not impossible. This
assignment is an "add on" assignment, so the perception is it's less
important to the students than their other assignments. It's facilitated and
graded by librarians, who are not in the classroom. And the worksheet
itself simplifies the information literacy/research process (students check
off boxes) and does not accurately indicate learning on the subject.
Nothing that could be stated across the board. Strengths were all over the
Strengths:
map.
44
Weaknesses:
Learn:
Compare:
Strategies:
Other:
Evaluation (students often didn't think much about their evaluation
criteria) and creating effective thesis statements.
That an add-on assignment not truly PART of a writing assignment is
not an effective assessment. If the assignments they're based on are not
consistent, then the assessment isn't consistent and therefore has less
meaning.
ENG 112 is still a natural fit for information literacy skills, but without
more consistency in writing assignments (which happened last year as
well), it's challenging to get good data. Last year's having students use
the CRAAP method actually seemed like a better assessment tool--more
consistency.
Work with the ENG 112 faculty to try to scaffold research into a master
writing assignment in Fall 2015 for the new Writing Across the
Disciplines course.
It might be time to move to evaluating IL either a) not at all, or b) in
COM 110/231 as they all have the same assignment and the research
portion is integrated into that assignment (and has been for years).
The College Goal for Information Literacy Was Met.
45
Data for each assessment is available and
documented in the Planning and Research
Department.
46