GENERAL EDUCATION



700548113563GENERAL EDUCATION00GENERAL EDUCATIONAssessment ReportEastern Kentucky UniversityFall 2013Report Prepared by Dr. Rose Perrine, Associate Dean University Programs; Coordinator General Education Assessment General Education Assessment Report: Eastern Kentucky UniversityAssessment TimelineEKU assesses all General Education courses every two years. All student learning competencies were assessed fall 2011 – spring 2012, and a data report prepared in fall 2012. Therefore, fall 2012 is the most recent data report available.Eastern Kentucky University’s General Education CompetenciesEastern Kentucky University’s student learning competencies and their relationship to the Statewide competencies can be viewed in Appendix A. Means of Assessing Each CompetencyCommon assessment processes includeAll competencies are assessed with direct student-learning measures. Student learning is assessed at or near the end of the course.Assessment instruments are developed by EKU faculty who teach the General Education courses.Departmental faculty members collaborate on a common assessment instrument for each course.The assessment is embedded in the courses such that students are graded on the assignment.Assessment instruments are unique to each course, but the same instrument is used in all sections of a course. Assessment instruments can contain objective, e.g., multiple choice, and/or subjectively-scored items, e.g., essay, mon rubrics are applied to the student work. These rubrics were created by faculty within each general education block, and are based on the general education goals/student learning outcomes that are assigned to that area. For assessment items that yield objective responses, e.g., multiple choice, there are established criteria for categorizing students into levels of accomplishment. For assessment items that yield subjectively-scored responses, categorizing students into levels of accomplishment is based on faculty judgment. For these items departmental faculty discuss expectations and score some student work as a team. Once faculty members standardize their scoring then a single faculty member may score a student’s work. Difficult or ambiguous cases are discussed as a team. Some departments score most/all student work as a team, due to the complicated nature of the scoring for these assignments. Sampling procedures: Work from a minimum of 30 students is assessed for each course. For courses with less than 30 students, all work is assessed. For courses with multiple sections the following procedure may be used: (Optional procedure: All sections may be used.)1—10 sections: Random sample of student work drawn from all sections11-20 sections: Random sample of student work drawn from 10 sections*More than 20 sections: Random sample of student work drawn from half of the sections *Instructions to faculty about scoring assessment items, categorizing students, sampling, preparing data reports, use of data, and commonly asked questions can be viewed in Appendix B. Summary of Data CollectedThe data report for fall 2012 (the most recent report available) can be viewed in Appendix C. Use of ResultsInformation about how outcomes were used for faculty to improve student learning can be viewed in Appendix D.General Education ChangesEKU revised its GE Program, effective fall 2012. The revisions can be viewed in Appendix E. Therefore, the next assessment data report (fall 2014) will show data from courses in the new program. AttachmentsCommon rubrics for each GE Block can be viewed in Appendix F. Assessment instruments are described in Appendix G. Oral and Written CommunicationSTATEWIDECompetenciesEKU CompetenciesEKUAssessment RubricListen and speak competently in a variety of communication contexts, which may include public, interpersonal, and/or small-group settings.Write clear and effective prose in several forms, using conventions appropriate to audience (including academic audiences), purpose, and genre.Find, analyze, evaluate, and cite pertinent primary and secondary sources, including academic databases, to prepare speeches and written texts.Identify, analyze, and evaluate statements, assumptions, and conclusions representing diverse points of view, and construct informed, sustained, and ethical arguments in response.Plan, organize, revise, practice, edit, and proofread to improve the development and clarity of ideas.Written Communication1.Demonstrating rhetorical knowledge by:Focusing on a specific purpose for a defined audience.Defining a specific topic through a clearly stated thesis.Constructing an effective discourse organization.Providing adequate and relevant supporting evidence, appropriate documentation, and clear and valid assumptions and conclusions.2.Applying critical thinking, reading, and writing by:Understanding a writing assignment as a series of tasks, including research, understood as finding, evaluating, analyzing, summarizing, and synthesizing appropriate outside sources.Integrating their own ideas with those of others.Using various forms of technology to support research and to enhance written compositions.3.Demonstrating control of written language by:Controlling sentence structures appropriate to academic writing.Controlling grammatical conventions of written Standard English, including word forms, punctuation, and spelling.Written CommunicationAudience/ToneOrganizationIntegrationCohesionControl of Written LanguageSentence Structure/SyntaxWord Choice/VocabularySurface FeaturesInformation LiteracyAppendix AStudent Learning Competencies: State and EKU ComparisonOral communication1.Applying critical thinking by:Utilizing various forms of technology to effectively research, organize, and integrate information required for message production and delivery.Adapting oral communication styles to appropriate contexts.Evaluating self and others’ communication skills.2.Demonstrating command of communication skills by:Successfully implementing effective verbal delivery skills related to the context.Successfully implementing effective nonverbal delivery skills related to the context.Demonstrating other-oriented perspective by:Writing and articulating ethical issues inherent in the message.Adhering to standards of ethical communication in presenting one’s views.Writing and articulating messages appropriate for various cultures and groups.Oral communicationStructureContentContextAudience awarenessOral DeliveryNonverbal DeliveryPresentation AidsOral and Written CommunicationStatewide 1 EKU Statewide 2 EKU Statewide 3 EKU Statewide 4 EKU Statewide 5 EKU MathematicsSTATEWIDECompetenciesEKUCompetenciesEKUAssessment RubricInterpret information presented in mathematical and/or statistical forms. (LEAP B)Illustrate and communicate mathematical and/or statistical information symbolically, visually and/or numerically. (LEAP A, B and C)Determine when computations are needed and to execute the appropriate computations; (LEAP B)Apply an appropriate model to the problem to be solved; (LEAP A, C and D)Make inferences, evaluate assumptions, and assess limitations in estimation modeling and/or statistical analysis. (LEAP B, C and D)Using mathematical methods to state and solve quantitative problems, including those stated in verbal form.Using numerical and graphical data to make reasonable and valid conclusions.Applying mathematical methods to real life prehensionAppropriate use of terminology and notationExecution of appropriate strategies for solving problemsUse of mathematical/logical operationsInterpretation of the meaning of solutions in the context of the problem(s)Integration across courseMathematicsStatewide 1 EKU MA 2 Statewide 2 EKU MA 2 and 3Statewide 3 EKU MA 1, 2 and 3Statewide 4 EKU MA 1 and 3Statewide 5 EKU MA 2Arts and HumanitiesSTATEWIDECompetenciesEKUCompetenciesEKUAssessment RubricArts and HumanitiesUtilize basic formal elements, techniques, concepts and vocabulary of specific disciplines within the Arts and Humanities.Distinguish between various kinds of evidence by identifying reliable sources and valid arguments.Demonstrate how social, cultural, and historical contexts influence creative expression in the arts and humanities.Evaluate the significance of human expression and experience in shaping larger social, cultural, and historical contexts.Evaluate enduring and contemporary issues of human experience.Foreign LanguageDemonstrate competency in a foreign language. Foreign language study develops essential skills and cultural awareness critical for success in a multilingual world.Arts and HumanitiesDemonstrating an understanding of the critical thinking skills used by artists and humanists to study, to evaluate, and to express the human condition.Reflecting critically upon the individual ideas and values expressed in creative works.Analyzing the cultural values and ethical issues expressed in creative works from different cultures.Analyzing the aesthetic qualities of creative works.Arts and HumanitiesComprehensionClarity of ExpressionFormal/Structural analysisContextual AnalysisArts and HumanitiesStatewide 1 EKU AH 1 and 4 Statewide 2 EKU AH 1Statewide 3 EKU AH 2 and 3Statewide 4 EKU AH 2 and 3Statewide 5 EKU AH 2, 3 and 4Foreign LanguageStatewide Foreign Language SLO EKU AH 1 and 3Natural SciencesSTATEWIDECompetenciesEKUCompetenciesEKUAssessment RubricCourse OutcomesDemonstrate an understanding of the methods of science inquiry. (LEAP A and B)Explain basic concepts and principles in one or more of the sciences. (LEAP A and B)Apply scientific principles to interpret and make predictions in one or more of the sciences. (LEAP A, B, and D)Explain how scientific principles relate to issues of personal and/or public importance. (LEAP A, B, C, and D)Block OutcomeConduct a hands-on project using scientific principles.Demonstrating an understanding of the methods by which humans gather data and make conclusions in biological and physical sciences.Explaining the major concepts and fundamental processes of biological and physical sciences.Applying the principles and theories of biological and physical sciences to make reasonable and valid conclusions.4.Applying scientific knowledge to examine and address issues of personal and public importance.Demonstrate an understanding of the methods used to carry out scientific inquiry.Explaining the major concepts of the natural sciences.Applying scientific principles to make reasonable and valid conclusions.Applying scientific knowledge to address issues of personal and public importance.Integration across course.Natural SciencesCourse OutcomesStatewide 1 EKU NS 1 Statewide 2 EKU NS 2Statewide 3 EKU NS 3Statewide 4 EKU NS 4Block OutcomeStatewide Block Outcome EKU NS 1, 2, 3 and 4Social and Behavioral SciencesSTATEWIDECompetenciesEKUCompetenciesEKUAssessment RubricDemonstrate knowledge of at least one area of the social and behavioral sciences.Apply knowledge, theories, and research methods, including ethical conduct, to analyze problems pertinent to at least one area of the social and behavioral sciences.Understand and demonstrate how at least one area of the social and behavioral sciences conceptualizes diversity and the ways it shapes human experience.Integrate knowledge of at least one area of the social and behavioral sciences into issues of personal or public municate effectively using the language and terminology germane to at least one area of the social and behavioral sciences.HistoryDemonstrating relevant perspective, rooted in time and place, in the analysis of historical (written and artifactual) sources.Demonstrating an understanding of the interactions of social, cultural, political, religious, economic, scientific and/or technological developments as factors in historical change.Building and clearly communicating an argument on the basis of historical (written and artifactual) evidence and documentation.Demonstrating ability to understand change over time and the significance and effects of historical events and prehensionApplication and analysisInterpretation and EvaluationMethodsIntegrationSocial and Behavioral ScienceDemonstrating an understanding of the methods by which social scientists gather data and make conclusions.Explaining the major concepts and fundamental processes basic to the social sciences.Applying the principles and theories of the social sciences to make reasonable and valid conclusions about matters of personal and public importance.Arts and HumanitiesStatewide 1 EKU HIS 1, 2 and 4; SB 2 Statewide 2 EKU HIS 1; SB 1Statewide 3 EKU HIS 3 and 4Statewide 4 EKU SB 3Statewide 5 EKU HIS and SB (all)Appendix BAssessment Information for EKU FacultyThese instructions are on the GE website for faculty to view as needed. GUIDELINES for GENERAL EDUCATION COURSESREVISED Spring 2013Prepared by: Rose Perrine, Associate Dean University Programs rose.perrine@eku.edu; 622-6764 OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT PROCESSFaculty collaborate to develop assessment items for each course. All sections of the same course must use the same assessment items and process.A scoring rubric for each GE Block/Element guides the development of the assessment items, and Rose Perrine is available to help as needed.Assessment items can be exam questions (objective or open-ended), written assignments, portfolios, papers, or oral presentations. Good assessment is not an “add on.” Rather, it is an evaluation of student performance that provides faculty with information that they would want regardless of whether assessment data were required. It is best to evaluate students toward the end of the semester. We want to know what students learned by end of the course.Each course must be assessed twice in each four-year cycle.For courses with multiple sections: (1) assessment items should be given to students in all sections of a course, (2) all faculty should use the assessment items for grading purposes, but (C) samples may be selected to be scored for assessment purposes.Data should be aggregated across all sections chosen for assessment. The GE Committee should not see any reports that include faculty names or CRNs. Send data report to Rose Perrine.EXPLANATION: THE “LEVELS” OF ACHIEVEMENT ON THE GRADING RUBRICSWhen we evaluate students in our courses we can often categorize them into four levels: The students who “get it,” (meet expectations) the students who don’t “get it,” (do not meet course expectations) and the students who fall in between. Occasionally, we have a student who exceeds course expectations. These levels correspond to the levels on the Grading Rubrics developed for the assessment of General Education Courses. The levels on the Grading Rubrics ALWAYS refer to achieving the student learning outcomes for THAT SPECIFIC COURSE. Students who meet course expectations are Competent. Students who do not meet course expectations are Beginning. Students who fall in between are Developing, and the occasional student who “exceeds expectations” is Accomplished. Please do not confuse “A” work with “Accomplished.” “Accomplished” means “exceeds courses expectations.”HOW TO CATEGORIZE STUDENTS WHEN “OBJECTIVE” ASSESSMENT ITEMS ARE USED: Objective items have “right and wrong” answers, e.g., multiple choice, true/false, matching, fill-in-the-blank, short answer. The grading rubrics were designed for written/oral assignments that require faculty judgment; thus, the language within each “cell” is not useful for categorizing students with “objective” assessment items. The following guidelines should be used with “objective” assessment items:A.For each criterion on the rubric (Comprehension, Methods, etc.) faculty should write at least 4 objective items that students who are competent in that specific course should be able to answer correctly. All sections of the same course must use the same assessment items. Thus, faculty must collaborate when writing these items. B.Each criterion on the rubric must be evaluated separately. Thus, a unique set of questions must be written for each criterion. For each criterion: ● Students who correctly answer 75--100% of the items for that criterion are “Competent” in that criterion. ● Students who correctly answer 50--74% of the items for that criterion are “Developing” in that criterion. ● Students who correctly answer 0—49% of the items for that criterion are “Beginning” in that criterion. note. It is not possible to classify students as “Accomplished” when using “objective” items.HOW TO CATEGORIZE STUDENTS WHEN WRITTEN/ORAL ASSIGNMENTS ARE USED:ACCOMPLISHED: Students may be categorized as “Accomplished” on written/oral assignments if they exceed the expectations of the course for that criterion. “Accomplished” level should be used ONLY in cases where the student clearly goes above and beyond the expectation. It is NOT just “A” work. These expectations are defined, in very general terms, on each grading PETENT: Students may be categorized as “Competent” on written/oral assignments if they meet the expectations of the course for that criterion. These expectations are defined, in very general terms, on each grading rubric. DEVELOPING. Student’s performance on assessment items does not fully meet the expectations for that criterion, but is not totally “off base” either. (Performance is incomplete in meeting expectations for that criterion.) These expectations are defined, in very general terms, on each grading rubric. BEGINNING: Student’s performance does not meet expectations for that criterion. These expectations are defined, in very general terms, on each grading rubric.GE-2006 and GE-2012Assessment Schedule for General Education Courses: Fall 2012 – Spring 2016Eastern Kentucky UniversityInterim Associate Dean University Programs: Rose Perrine rose.perrine@eku.edu Document Date: Spring 2012DATETASKSFall 2010--Spring 2011 ALL GE-2006 courses should have been assessed (f2010 or sp2011).Fall 2011—Spring 2012Score student work, prepare data report, and meet with faculty to discuss use of data. Modify instruments, processes, and/or curricula as needed. Send data report and use of data to Rose BY MAY 1, 2012. Fall 2012—Spring 2013Assess ALL GE-2006* & GE-2012 courses (f2012 or Sp2013).*This will be the last required assessment for GE-2006 courses that are not also in GE-2012. For Block/Elements V/5 and Element 6 use most recent rubrics (created summer 2012)Fall 2013—Spring 2014Score student work, prepare data report, and meet with faculty to discuss use of data. Modify instruments, processes, and/or curricula as needed. Send data report and use of data to Rose BY MAY 1, 2014. Spring 2014GE Committee reapproves all GE-2006 courses. Reapproval will be automatic for those courses for which two data reports and use of data have been sent to Rose. Departments will not need to request reapproval. No additional assessments are required for GE-2006 courses that are not also in GE-2012.Fall 2014—Spring 2015Assess ALL GE-2012 (f2014 or Sp2015).Fall 2015—Spring 2016Score student work, prepare data report, and meet with faculty to discuss use of data. Modify instruments, processes, and/or curricula as needed. Send data report and use of data to Rose BY MAY 1, 2016. Spring 2016GE Committee reapproves all GE-2012 courses. Reapproval will be automatic for those courses for which two data reports and use of data have been sent to Rose. Departments will not need to request reapproval. Suggested Sampling Procedures for Multi-Section Courses If a course has multiple sections, it is sometimes difficult to get data/assessment assignments from all sections. In an attempt to reduce the burden of getting all data, the following procedure may be used: (Optional procedure: All sections may be used.)1—10 sections: Assessment data from all sections11-20 sections: Assessment data from 10 sections*More than 20 sections: Assessment data from 1/2 of the sections**Please select sections to be included in data report by randomly selecting from the following groups: (a) Richmond campus; (b) Extended campuses; (c) On-line courses; (D) Part-time faculty; (E) Full-time faculty. We understand that these groups are not mutually exclusive, but are provided as examples of populations that should be included in sample.Please note. The procedure of having all instructors in all sections collect the assessment assignment/data should be enforced, i.e., all students should complete the assignment. The only change is that the person responsible for gathering all the assignments/data now has the option of “nagging” only a subset of instructors to get those assignments/data at the end of the semester. This new procedure is optional and is intended to help those departments who have problems getting data/assignments from every section.Chairs. Chairs may want use the data to compare the performance of students in the various groups, e.g., on-line vs campus courses. However, data should be aggregated before sending to Rose. How many students’ assignment do we need to grade? If the assignment is easy to grade (e.g. scantrons) then grading all of the students’ work is desirable. If the assignment is more time-consuming to grade, then choose a random sample: (1) For 1—10 sections choose about 10% of the students’ work, with a minimum of 30 students; (2) For more than 10 sections choose about 5% of the students’ work. Fewer students may be chosen for the sample when the assignment is unusually difficult to evaluate, e.g., oral presentation videos, portfolios. Please contact Rose Perrine for guidance.You do NOT need to have the same sample size for each criterion. For example, if your assessment instrument includes multiple choice items to measure “Comprehension,” and an essay to measure “Integration,” then you might report all students’ scores for “Comprehension,” and a sample of 30 students for integration. EXAMPLE OF DATA SUMMARY & USE OF DATACourse: PST 101Data from: Spring 2011Report prepared by: Mary ChangNumber of sections assessed: 4Assessment Task: Comprehension and Methods were assessed via 60 multiple-choice items on the final exam. Clarity of Expression, Formal Analysis, Theoretical Application, and Integration were assessed via a paper.Sample: Four sections of the course were offered in spring 2011 (total 100 students). All students’ exams were assessed for Comprehension and Methods. A random sample of 10 student papers from each section were selected and graded by a committee for Clarity of Expression, Formal Analysis, Theoretical Application and Integration.Data Summary (NUMBER of students in each category)PST 101: Spring 2011CriteriaSample*Size4-Accomp3-Compet2-Develop1-BeginNAComprehension100 (all students in 4 sections)N/A(multiple-choice items)403030Clarity of Expression40 (random sample of 10 students from each of 4 sections)020200Formal/Structural Analysis40 (random sample)5102015Contextual AnalysisXTheoretical Application40 (random sample)5201510Methods100 (all)N/A90100Integration40 (random sample)03550* Sample Size column needed only if sample size varies by criterion.EXAMPLE: USE OF DATA Comprehension and Methods. The distribution of scores for Comprehension appears reasonable. However, there were 5 comprehension items that few students answered correctly. The faculty judged all 5 items to be important, and have discussed how those concepts could be emphasized and illustrated more in future classes. We have agreed to include the PST Paper #3c as an assigned reading in each class, as it emphasizes the concepts that we think are important.The distribution for Methods does not appear reasonable because 90% of the students were assessed as “competent.” This does not reflect the students’ performance on other assignments in the course. The faculty discussed the assessment items for methods and determined that they are challenging, but that faculty were more-or-less teaching to the test by using the same examples in class as are on the exam. We agreed to NOT use the same variables and concepts in any class examples that appear on the exam. We agreed on a set of examples that could be used in class and will check this item on the next assessment to see how students perform.Clarity of Expression, Formal Analysis, Theoretical Application & Integration. 50% of students were “developing” on Clarity of Expression. Because most students in this course have not completed ENG 101 and 102, this seems like a realistic distribution. Faculty have discussed ways to help students write with more clarity, and next semester will begin some practice writing, with feedback, in several class sessions. We have agreed to use the TCAC Book that was written by a team of EKU faculty involved in the TCAC program. The book has several lesson plans and suggestions for helping students become better writers. We also agreed to use the Noel Studio to present short lessons to students, and to encourage students to visit the Noel Studio often. The distribution of scores for Integration does not appear reasonable. Faculty perceptions are that students do not integrate material well, but assessment scores suggest that a majority of students are competent. Faculty re-visited the integration part of the paper and realized that the assignment did not require students to integrate material on their own. Rather, in class, faculty tended to integrate the material for the students, and in the papers, students reiterated what the instructors had previously integrated. Faculty have agreed to modify their teaching strategies to demonstrate integration of material in class, but not use the same material that students are later required to integrate in the papers. We discussed several integration examples that we could present in class that do not use the variables students are expected to integrate on the assessment exam. Send Data Summary and Use of Data to rose.perrine@eku.edu COMMON QUESTIONS: ASSESSEMENT of GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES1.WHAT AM I ASSESSING?You are assessing the general education goals that the course addresses. These general education goals appear on the course syllabus in all sections of the course. 2.WHY NOT JUST USE COURSE GRADES? Course grades are based on a combination of various course assignments. A student who makes a “B” in a course may have earned an “A” on three exams, and a “D” on a research paper. The global grade of “B” provides no information regarding in which parts of the course the student performed better or worse. On the other hand, assessment results for this student might indicate that he/she performed well only on lower-level thinking tasks, such as comprehension of information, which is often evaluated with exams. Assessment results might show that this same student performed poorly on higher-level thinking tasks, such as integration of material, which might be evaluated via a written assignment, or essay questions on an exam.3.HOW DO WE KNOW ASSESSMENT ITEMS ARE VALID?The issue of validity (do items measure the construct accurately?) is no different for an assessment instrument than it is for a test. One type of validity that is important for academic tests is content validity, which refers to whether assessment items (or test items) reflect a specific domain of content. Thus, assessment items for a math course might include decisions regarding which formulas to use, calculations of equations, and interpretations of results. By creating assessment items that fit each criterion on the Rubric, assessment items are likely to have better content validity than many tests. Ultimately, the validity of the assessment instrument reflects that knowledge base of the people who created it. This is why assessment instruments should be created by faculty experts. When a group of experts collaborate on creating assessment items, the validity is likely to be better than when only one expert creates items.4.HOW DO WE DEVELOP AN ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT?First, Departments should strive to involve as many faculty as possible in the creation of an assessment instrument. Faculty should discuss what they perceive as the important aspects of a course, note the commonalities, and agree on a “core set” of course material. Faculty should then collaborate on developing assessment items that (a) measure this core set of material, and (b) fit the criteria on the Rubrics. Second, faculty should discuss the procedure for administering the assessment items. The assessment items should be embedded in an exam or assignment that is given later in the semester in order to test what students have learned in the course. All faculty should give the assessment at a similar time and in a similar context. Students should be told the same thing about the assessment – specifically, NOTHING that you would not normally say about an exam. It is not necessary to tell students that X% of this exam is assessment of GE course objectives. To some degree, every exam in GE courses should be measuring the GE course objectives. From a student’s point of view there is no difference between assessment items and test items. 5.HOW DO WE GRADE THE ASSESSMENT ITEMS?Individual faculty should grade their students’ assessment items, use the score as part of the students’ grade, and use the overall results to determine potential strengths and weaknesses of his/her individual course. This individual grading may or may not be standardized. For example, if the assessment involves a research paper, one faculty member might decide to weight the literature review 30%, while another faculty member may weight the literature review only 10%. However, these scores are for the individual faculty members’ use; they are not the scores that are reported for assessment purposes. For purposes of reporting assessment results, data from all sections should be aggregated. Thus, instructors might submit to a committee all the assessment exams/papers. That committee might select a random sample and grade (or re-grade) the items according the Rubric. At least two faculty members should grade several assignments to check for reliability in grading procedures. If grading appears to be reliable for several assignments, then one faculty person could grade each assignment, while collaborating with the other grader when necessary. Scoring student work in a group provides opportunities for faculty to discuss common errors, and strengths and weakness of students, and provides opportunities to discuss potential changes to the assessment instrument, process, instructions to students, and/or course lesson plans.Appendix CEKU: General Education Data Report Fall 2012Course-level assessment Fall 2010—Spring 2012(Second Year of Four-Year Cycle)OVERVIEWEKU’s revised General Education Program began in Fall 2006. Courses in the program are approved for four years only, and must be reapproved by the General Education Committee to remain in the program. Fall 2010 began our second four-year cycle. All courses are due to be assessed the first and third years of the cycle (2010—11 & 2012—13). Data reports and use of data are due the second the fourth years of the cycle (2011—12 & 2013—14). For this report data were analyzed for 164/165 of courses taught between Fall 2010—Spring 2012. STATUS OF ASSESSMENT PROCESSThe Associate Dean of University Programs serves as the GE assessment coordinator, reviews data, and provides feedback to each department regarding their assessment instrument, data summary, and use of data. Regarding all of these components, significant progress has been made over the past six years. All courses now have valid assessment instruments that have been adopted by faculty, and processes for collecting and analyzing assessment data within departments are established. Use of data has moved from a focus on instrument refinement to a focus on improving student learning. A report on how data have been used is included in this document.CRITERION FOR SUCCESS85% of students who complete general education courses will achieve the competences for that course.The competencies for a course are criteria on the GE Block-specific, course-level scoring rubric used to evaluate students’ responses on the assessment instrument. Competencies on each rubric are based on the GE goals addressed by each Block. A subset of the competencies on each rubric is defined as “critical thinking” based on the definition of critical thinking used by the University. Because EKU’s QEP is focused on critical thinking, data for critical thinking are presented separately.Operational Definition of “achieve.” In many cases the “developing” level of accomplishment may be evidence of meeting the learning competency because in a single general education course significant learning can occur even if students have not yet reached a “competent” level. Thus, in the data report “achieve” is defined as the percent of students who were evaluated as “accomplished,” “competent,” or “developing.” DATA SUMMARYData were analyzed by calculating the percent of students who were evaluated as “accomplished,” “competent,” and “developing” for each criterion, by GE Block. Summary data by GE Block, collapsed across all competencies, are reported in Table 1.Interpretation of DataThe percent of students who achieved the general education competencies ranged from 74 - 94%. The criterion of 85% of students achieving competencies was met in the 8/11 GE Blocks/areas.Table 1. Students’ Achievement of General Education Competencies by BlockGE BLOCK% Achieving GE CompetenciesAggregated Across All Rubric CriteriaAggregated Across Critical ThinkingCriteria OnlyGENERAL EDUCATION COREI a/b: Written Communication8581I c: Oral Communication8892II: Mathematics8585III & VII: Arts & Humanities8898IV & VII: Natural Sciences7468V & VII: Historical and Social Sciences8176EKU SPECIFIC VI: Wellness9495VIII: Foreign Languages8585VIII: American Sign Language 8787VIII: Race, Gender, Sexuality Theme 8181VIII: Society, Technology, Values Theme8988Students’ Achievement of General Education Competencies by Block and Rubric CriteriaGE BLOCKCOMPETENCY(Rubric Criterion)N%AchievedGE CompetencyI a/b: Written Communication2 coursesAudience/Tone (CT)14790Organization: Integration (CT)14774Organization: Cohesion (CT)14778Sentence Structure/Syntax14789Word Choice/Vocabulary14796Surface Features14793Information Literacy14974Total Across all Criteria & Courses85Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria 81I c: Oral Communication2 coursesStructure10980Content (CT)10797Context10090Audience Awareness (CT)10986Oral Delivery10192Nonverbal Delivery10988Presentation Aids10185Total Across all Criteria & Courses88Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria 92II & VII (qs): Quantitative22 coursesComprehension (CT)49388Use of Terminology/Notation (CT)45581Execution: Strategies for Problem Solving (CT)48985Use of Math/Logical Operations (CT)41482Interpretation: Meaning of Solutions (CT)43285Integration (CT)50086Total Across all Criteria & Courses85Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria 85GE BLOCKCOMPETENCY (Rubric Criterion)N%AchievedGE CompetencyIII & VII (ah):Arts & Humanities33 coursesComprehension127488Clarity of Expression (CT)111190Formal/Structural Analysis (CT)93183Contextual Analysis (CT)100889Theoretical Application (CT)92191Methods82587Integration (CT)126389Total Across all Criteria & Courses88Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria 89IV & VII (ns):Natural Science25 coursesMethods292088Major Concepts290876Application: Reasonable & Valid Conclusions (CT)291964Application: Issues of Personal/Public Import (CT)167083Integration (CT)291864Total Across all Criteria & Courses74Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria 68V & VII (sbs): Historical and Social Sciences28 coursesComprehension245490Application & Analysis (CT)242681Interpretation & Evaluation (CT)50366Methods242983Integration (CT)238373Total Across all Criteria & Courses81Total for Critical Thinking (CT) Criteria 76. Appendix DUse of Results for General Education Course AssessmentSAMPLE Statements from Departments regarding USE OF DATAFirst Two Years of a Four-Year Cycle: General Education Program Fall 2010 – Spring 2012Note from GE Assessment Coordinator. This document contains sample statements provided by departments regarding faculty use of GE assessment data during the first two years of the second four-year cycle of EKU’s General Education Program (fall 2010 – spring 2012). A few departments are still refining assessment instruments and processes, and, thus, their use-of-data statements focus on validating the instruments, and revising processes. However, we made significant progress in the first four-year GE cycle (fall 2006—spring 2010) in helping departments develop and refine valid instruments, and we are now more focused on helping faculty understand how to use data to improve student learning. The use-of-data statements below demonstrate that progress, and show that most departments are using GE data to improve student learning. SAMPLE USE OF DATA STATEMENTSBLOCK I: COMMUNICATIONENG 101/102: Research, Reading, Writing, and RhetoricThe 2010 course evaluation indicated that students did not employ enough visual rhetoric in their papers. To deal with that problem, that summer’s workshop focused on how and why graphic design could/should be employed in student papers. The emphasis was not the creation of graphics but their rhetorical ability to enhance a message. The workshop included group work and actual analysis of graphics to better understand the role of visual rhetoric in modern academic writing. The 2010 evaluation also suggested that instructors needed additional training in writing comments on student papers. In the summer workshop in 2011, we discussed giving students a clear sense in the end comment of what the student needs to improve but also to suggest ways that the student could improve. To that end, we had a practice session where instructors individually graded a sample paper, wrote end comments, and shared responses with the group. That exercise, I intended, would also help to more closely standardize the grades given at EKU in 101 and 102.ENG 105: First Year Writing SeminarThe 2008 evaluation indicated few problems with superior scores in all areas, but the 2010 evaluation showed trouble some problems ranging from mechanical deficiencies to poor research and organizational skills. The scores were so egregiously low that I requested that we re-test the 105 students again this Fall (2011), thinking that their scores were some sort of anomaly. I shared the scores with the 105 instructors and apprised them of the poor scores. If I were to use just the 2010 results, I would have to completely re-think the teaching of that course. It is my belief that re-testing the 105 students would help clarify whether the miserable 2010 scores were or were not representative the normal population for that course, and therefore more clearly identify what the problem areas for 105 really are. (note. re-testing is taking place.)I have more extensive notes on what happened in those summer all-day workshops. Since I supervise a large number of instructors, individual conferences with instructors to improve their instructors have not been detailed here, but I speak often with as many of the 50 instructors as possible. This week, for example, I have spoken with three different instructors. But I have also taken more general measures that I believe will improve the overall instruction in composition, including a year-long training program for potential online instructors; the collection and analysis of the syllabi of all instructors in all sections of composition, offering suggestions and changes when warranted; the addition of computer-networked instruction; the appearances of the authors of two of our textbooks who clarified for our instructors the purpose and best use of their books; and almost weekly messages from me to instructors about new pedagogical materials, committees in the composition and their work, announcements of writing contests open to our students, helpful websites, textbooks designed for specific student problems in composition, the availability of book-length support materials through one of our publisher, and any matters relevant to the teaching of composition our instructors need to know about ( I have written two this week). I also encourage instructors to come to me with any pedagogical or student problems (many have), and see me as a resource person in composition instruction. To that end, I hold generous office hours so that I can also offer an instructor a convenient time to meet with me. I also attend the Conference on College Composition and Communication to sit in on sessions dealing with the supervision of instructors and new methodologies that could improve instruction. Finally, I subscribe to two professional journals that also offer insight into improving instruction.CMS 100: Introduction to Human CommunicationThe faculty felt that our most recent general education assessment cycle yielded more accurate results, as improvements in the data collection methods were made, the sample sizes were quite a bit larger, and the quality of the data itself increased. This time, data for CMS 100 and 210 was collected and analyzed separately, providing insights targeted to the goals of each course. Because we felt more confident that our results were generalizable this time, the results of the CMS 100 assessment were shared at the annual faculty retreat for all of those involved in teaching the general education courses. While the course syllabus did not alter significantly, many additional resources to help faculty teaching CMS 100 better address message structure, oral delivery, and nonverbal delivery (in terms of the oral communication criteria) were provided. Since the opening of the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity, faculty have also introduced students to the resources available to them there, including help in research (to bolster content and organization of content) and access to practice facilities to reinforce verbal and nonverbal communication fluency. Data gathered through this assessment cycle also informed faculty about the ongoing need to reinforce critical thinking competencies, particularly in message comprehension, analysis, selection of quality evidence/supporting materials, and perspective-taking. Faculty members were given resources from the QEP office to supplement the Paul & Elder Miniature Guide publication currently required in CMS 100. Faculty members spent time discussing these resources and received specific training on how to utilize the new resources at the retreat, along with pedagogical strategies to foster enhanced critical thinking. CMS 210: Public SpeakingGE assessment strategies for the most recent assessment cycle improved since the last time data were collected. The sample size was larger and the quality of the data for analysis increased. This time, data for CMS 100 and 210 was collected and analyzed separately, providing insights targeted to the goals of each course. Given the number of sections of CMS 210 offered each year, the faculty felt the results of the assessment were representative of students taking CMS 210 and helpful in terms of making adjustments to the course. The assessment data were used first of all as an indicator of how many CMS 210 students actually possess competent public communication skills -- many more than we had thought. Thus, this data served as confirmation that faculty and students are meeting criteria better than "suspected." Data indicated, however, that CMS 210 faculty and students need to work more on audience awareness and analysis, as demonstrated in the speeches. Both the evaluated speeches and the accompanying outlines indicated the need for students to explore other perspectives, to consider audience points-of-view and subsequent message adaptation to better accomplish oral communication goals. At the annual CMS 100/210 faculty retreat, these specific assessment results were shared and discussed. Since there are a variety of activities and resources faculty members can access to address these issues, no single strategy for improvement was advanced. Faculty recognize, however, that the development and implementation of a common assignment (across all sections of CMS 210) would be helpful both to reinforce audience-awareness requirements and to better assess the extent to which students are developing their other-orientation. BLOCK II &VII (qs): MATHEMATICS & QUANTITATIVE SKILLSMAT (sample of mathematics courses)The Mathematics Service Committee was unimpressed with the results, but noted that the results are inconclusive due to the small sample size sample size, the data seem to indicate that most students are performing at reasonable levels. To address the problems that a portion of the students in the class have we will try to enforce prerequisites for the class, catch struggling students early and suggest remedial work, and encourage students who need to drop back to lower level math classes to strengthen their background.The committee observed that placing the assessment questions at the end of the exam probably made it more likely that students, out of exhaustion and frustration, would skip them by the time they had spent almost 2 hours on the exam. Hence, we decided to place the questions at the beginning of the exam in future semesters.Furthermore, many students refuse put commensurate effort into non-multiple-choice questions—believing that the odds of a higher score lie with multiple-choices questions. The committee suggested that instructors emphasize to the students the use of performance on the assessment questions in deciding borderline course grades. College algebra has been identified by the Mathematical Association of America as one of the “gateway” courses: nationally it suffers from a 25-plus-year trend in poor preparation by college-bound students. It will probably take significant time for reforms in pre-college education in Kentucky and recruitment by EKU from a small pool of qualified students to gain much traction against this trend.The committee has come to the conclusion over several years that the Spring courses’ students are qualitatively different that those in Fall courses in Mat 107. Therefore, we need to sample the Fall 2012 cohort, rather than the Spring 2013.The committee also noted that the results are inconclusive due to the small sample size sample size (10) relative to the number of students taking MAT 107.PHI 100: Practical ReasoningFaculty made changes to PHI 100 in the Fall of 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The data indicated that the area of Operations required the most effort in terms of improving student learning. In response to the data concerning Operations, instructors provide more opportunities for students to compare and discuss their answers to exercises covering specific logical concepts, skills, and techniques, e.g., having individual students share their answers with the class or in small groups.STA 215: Introduction to Statistical ReasoningWhile the scores are generally low, they are still generally better than the scores from the last round of assessment, which was completed in the spring semester of 2009; they are substantially better than the scores from the assessment that was completed in the spring semester of 2007. In particular, the reduction in the number of 1’s from 2009 to 2011 is encouraging. The faculty would still like to see more 3’s in all areas.An increased use of technology was recommended in 2007, and since then some instructors have begun using online homework. Syllabi were adjusted to say that a two-variable scientific calculator is required and that the instructor will use a TI-83 or TI-84; this positive change has been maintained. Since the 2011 data indicate that student performance is headed in the right direction, faculty members plan to continue to use technology to help students to understand concepts without struggling with computations.The 2009 report indicated that hiring another tenure-track statistician might ultimately result in better assessment scores in STA 215 because it would be helpful if there were more experts in the field of statistics available to teach introductory statistics courses, and having another full-time statistician in the department would mean that there would be someone else to provide fresh ideas and help with curriculum development. In 2011, the department hired another tenure-track statistician, a department chair who is also a statistician, and two new lecturers with backgrounds in statistics. These additions to the department are expected to have positive effects on introductory statistics courses and statistics courses in general.The Statistics Curriculum Committee met on March 12, 2012, and discussed the possibility of changing the STA 215 textbook. They decided to keep the Moore text for at least one more year but to try using a new homework system that will provide students with more resources.The Department of Mathematics and Statistics has continued to make efforts to see that students come to college prepared to do college-level mathematics. The statistics faculty members are hoping that these efforts will ultimately result in better assessment scores in STA 215.STA 270: Applied StatisticsThe committee adopted a new text for the Fall 2011 semester. This text is more rigorous, focuses on interpretation, includes more probability, and uses MyStatLab for online homework. Instructors have found MyStatLab to be more effective for homework than the previous online homework system due to the extra “helps.” Clickers are still being used by some faculty to reinforce concepts in the class. Beginning in the Fall 2011, students can take a 1-credit-hour STA 270 laboratory class to reinforce the material they are learning in their classes. The results are an improvement from assessment in 2009, so the faculty members feel they are moving in the right direction.BLOCK III &VII (ah): ARTS & HUMANITIESAFA 201: The African ExperienceFaculty studied the assessment data from AFA 201/202 In Spring 2009 and 2010. In comparing the data and evaluating areas of strengths and weaknesses as provided by the data, faculty made changes to the course in Fall 2010 and subsequent semesters. Student learning outcomes were revaluated and modified to more accurately target and measure learning. In addition to proven instructional strategies, such group work and collaboration among class members, classroom simulations and role-playing, students were encouraged to attend outside events and interact with speakers as a way to broaden their viewpoints and encourage outside research on topics of interest. Instructors provided greater guidance as students initiated and completed work on the major class writing assignment. In order to provide further clarity on the subject and help resolve any research issues students may be experiencing, one-on-one-conferences were required of all students after abstracts and paper proposals were submitted to the instructor. All students were also advised to either visit the Writing Center or schedule a follow-up conference with the instructor to facilitate proper use of textual evidence, primary and secondary source documentation and formatting as well as clarity of expression.ARH 390: Survey of Art History IData collected between Fall 2010-the present indicates that students enrolled in ARH 390 continue to be primarily assessed as Accomplished, Competent, or Developing, in all criteria categories with the majority assessed as Competent. Again, Theoretical Application and Integration Across Course remain two criteria where students did not assess as consistently high, as is Contextual Analysis (i.e. a few more students assessed at Developing in these criteria than in other criteria, but the majority of the students did indeed assess at Competent). Because the variations in assessment numbers remain so slight, the committee plans to recommended individual faculty self-evaluate their teaching methods, in consultation with the Gen Ed committee, to determine how best to strengthen student accomplishment in the areas in question. It should be noted here that ARH 390 is included in Gen Ed block 7 and 8, two blocks that have been eliminated with the recent Gen Ed re-structuring. As such, ARH 390 may not be a Gen ED offering in the future.ARH 391: Survey of Art History IIData collected between Fall 2010-the present indicates that students enrolled in ARH 391 continue to be primarily assessed as Accomplished, Competent, or Developing in all criteria categories with the majority assessed as Competent. Formal Structural Analysis, Methods, and Integration Across Course are criteria where students did not assess as consistently high (i.e. a few more students assessed at Developing in these criteria than in other criteria, but the majority of the students did indeed assess at Competent). Because the variations in assessment numbers remain so slight, the committee plans to recommended individual faculty self-evaluate their teaching methods, in consultation with the Gen Ed committee, to determine how best to strengthen student accomplishment in the areas in question. It should be noted here that ARH 391 is included in Gen Ed block 7 and 8, two blocks that have been eliminated with the recent Gen Ed re-structuring. As such, ARH 391 may not be a Gen ED offering in the future.ART 200: Art AppreciationData collected between Fall 2010-the present indicates that students enrolled in ART 200 continue to be primarily assessed as Competent, Developing, or Beginning in all criteria categories, with the majority assessed as Developing or Beginning. The Gen Ed committee believes that the course content for ART 200 is sound and theorizes that our previous recommendations failed to strengthen assessment scores in large part because there has been a great deal of turn-over in the faculty and instructors who teach ART 200 over the past few years and the committee may not have communicated our Gen Ed goals to these new faculty as thoroughly as needed. The committee continues to theorize that immature writing skills account for assessment scores at the lower end of the spectrum, and likewise continues to support oral presentations and writing assignments within the curriculum as a means of improving students’ ability to express their comprehension and analysis of course content. The committee plans to more thoroughly communicate our Gen Ed goals to new or part-time faculty teaching ART 200 in the future. We also plan to mandate, rather than simply recommend, both an oral presentation and a written essay component as evaluation methods in all sections of ART 200. The committee also plans to re-evaluate the assessment question that we currently have set for ART 200, in tandem with the faculty who teach the course, to better determine if the question requires more art historical, cross-period comprehension and analysis than is realistic of students enrolled in an Art Appreciation course are realistically prepared for (i.e. the current question reads very similar to the questions prepared for ARH 390 and 390, but those two courses provide much more cross-period art historical interpretation and analysis than an Art Appreciation course could or even should).BEM 350/351: Cinema History I & IIFaculty used data to further implement changes to instructor/student interaction in an effort to enhance student collaboration in the learning process. Small group workshops were scheduled to take place in the library during class, with the instructor fielding questions from student groups who responded to an in-class research assignment.ENG 210/211/212: English LiteratureIn comparison with the Fall 2009 assessment, our work in General Education in Literature is showing a distinctive move upward. The dismissal of the common prompt most likely contributed to the improvement. Faculty have developed common lesson plans to improve students’ understanding of the concepts. We are making more use of the Noel Studio to help students improve their writing skills.ENR 112: Academic Literacy and LearningReading faculty met and discussed the results of the assessment and the need for continued emphasis on summarizing and analyzing strategies.FCC: Culture and Civilization (sample courses)Future uses of these results: The portfolios are working well in their present format. The current events section should be expanded somewhat, since France is so consistently in the news. A larger selection of films to choose from will be allowed, based on student suggestions in many cases,How I use this data: I use this data to determine whether to slow down/accelerate the pace in class, reading assignment amount, and topics for group discussion.HON 205: Honors Humanities IAn Excel spreadsheet containing the data was e-mailed to Honors Humanities instructors. The selected students performed best (in terms of the percentage of 3’s and 4’s) in Clarity, with 70% of the papers demonstrating Competent or Accomplished skills. The papers were scored lowest in Contextual Analysis and Integration. Most students in the sample seem to have a basic command of standard English (Clarity of Expression) and engage in rudimentary organizational strategies, such as paragraphing. Most essays seem to lack depth of understanding (Comprehension), but students comprehend and can apply the most general concepts.There is a problem in that the assignment was not exactly the same for all papers. Because some of the written assignments submitted for assessment required students to integrate texts from throughout the semester, whereas others asked students to consider only two works assigned in the last unit of the course, it was more difficult to estimate in the latter case the success with which students were able to integrate themes from throughout the course than it was in the former. The inconsistencies in the assignment directions could explain some of the perceived weaknesses in the areas of Contextual Analysis and Integration. Also, in this reading one grader noted that she basically applied the wording of the rubric rather than the headings (meets expectations of the course, etc.) and that the descriptions in the rubric may not correlate with the realities of real course standards.While one Humanities professor who scored papers does not think the individual strengths and weakness of the writing submitted by students is effectively captured by assigning to them numbers corresponding to each of the criteria listed on the rubric, he did find that it became clear in reading these essays together that the best essays tended to be those with the most clearly identifiable argumentative structure and in which the authors frequently employed brief citations from the relevant texts to support the claims advanced in their essays. These are effective writing strategies, the development of which Humanities instructors will continue to seek to cultivate in students in their courses.?The Honors Program recently revised the honors curriculum and obtained approval for the revisions from the university. Under the new curriculum, a Humanities sequence is no longer required. The Honors Program hosted its first workshop designed to aid faculty members in developing new interdisciplinary courses on May 8, 2012. More opportunities for course planning and development should follow. The Honors Program Director and Associate Director are also working with the General Education Assessment Coordinator to establish a programmatic assessment system.HON 308: Special TopicsWhile students showed competence in Comprehension and Contextual Analysis using primary and secondary sources, they seemed challenged to articulate their ideas clearly. The instructor learned that even though most students who take the course are juniors, their writing skills and research methods were still developing. Hence, the instructor will do the following: (1) provide more specific writing and evaluation guidelines; and (2) request students to provide early drafts of their papers to examine and go over in one-on-one conferences instead of waiting until the end of the semester, when students have no chance to learn from their mistakes.The Honors Program recently revised the honors curriculum and obtained approval for the revisions from the university. Under the new curriculum, all sections of HON 308 will be Writing Intensive. The Honors Program hosted its first workshop designed to aid faculty members in developing new interdisciplinary courses on May 8, 2012. More opportunities for course planning and development should follow. The Honors Program Director and Associate Director are also working with the General Education Assessment Coordinator to establish a programmatic assessment system.HON 306: Honors Humanities IIExcel spreadsheets containing the data were e-mailed to Honors Humanities instructors. The data continue to indicate that making the HON Humanities courses writing intensive has allowed the instructors to make the process of writing more of a focus within the course. The papers evaluated for Written Communication show their strongest area to be “Surface Features,” followed by both “Audience/Tone” and “Control of Written Language (Word Choice/Vocabulary).” The areas deemed weakest by the evaluator were “Information Literacy,” followed by “Organization/Integration.” Thus, the Honors Humanities faculty may wish to focus instruction on ways to “select relevant, accurate, appropriate, and significant sources” (the description of the “accomplished/4” category for “Information Literacy”) and to “fairly and accurately synthesize sources and integrate relevant information, with significant depth and breadth” (the description of the “4” category for “Organization/Integration”).When evaluated for Critical Thinking, the strongest area in these same five papers was “Synthesis,” while the weakest area was “Application.” The description of the 4 ranking for “Application” is “Accurately applies relevant concepts/theories in different contexts and in novel/creative manner.” The instructors will continue to stress instructions on how to build an argument by accurately applying concepts from philosophical texts to literary works. In the papers evaluated for Arts & Humanities, the strongest areas were “Comprehension” and “Clarity,” each garnering a score of “3/Competent” in 6 out of the 10 papers. The weakest area was “Contextual Analysis,” with 3 scores of “1/Beginning.” Thus, the Honors Humanities faculty should continue to think of ways to incorporate contextual information into the course concerning the primary readings, although this concern might also be seen as being more in the domain of the Honors Civilization course sequence.The Honors Program recently revised the honors curriculum and obtained approval for the revisions from the university. Under the new curriculum, a Humanities sequence is no longer required. The Honors Program hosted its first workshop designed to aid faculty members in developing new interdisciplinary courses on May 8, 2012. More opportunities for course planning and development should follow. The Honors Program Director and Associate Director are also working with the General Education Assessment Coordinator to establish a programmatic assessment system.HUM: Humanities (all)In the Fall of 2009, we undertook fairly comprehensive review of the coordination of our teaching of Gen Ed courses, especially HUM 124, HUM 226 and HUM 228. This led to a number of improvements, noted below. As part of our ongoing discussions, the HUM section met again in the Fall of 2010 to revise our assessment assignments for all of our Gen Ed Courses (HUM 124, 226, 228, and 300W). As a result of this, we clarified the need for our students in their assessment essays to address themes of broad human significance in an integrated manner across the course. It was decided in most cases to ask students to make reference to two or more works studied, but not necessarily to require them to draw these from different sequential or thematic units of the course or from different artistic media. This is something that we are revisiting in light of the 2010-11 Gen Ed Assessment data, and in light of our general commitment to maintaining a proper distribution of the fine arts in our interdisciplinary courses (roughly 50% literature, 25% visual arts and 25% music and/or another relevant area such as philosophy/religion). HUM 124: Humanities and the Search for MeaningTaking into account the evidence of past experience, articulated by the veteran instructors, and addressing the need to integrate the new instructors, we decided for HUM 124 to begin working more cohesively as a unit with one main primary text, and anthology, Literature: The Human Experience (LHE), which has the virtue of being organized around a thematic approach to the human life-span (Innocence and Experience / Conformity and Rebellion / Love and Hate / The Presence of Death), while including an extensive variety of selections (in multiple genres, including short stories, poetry, essays, and drama, plus a section on poetry and art) from which instructors might choose in building a course. We had in the past found that the previously wide-open and less coordinated approach to HUM 124 (with various instructors selecting their own materials) did not uniformly ensure that students were being provided with the integrated approach to interdisciplinary arts and humanities learning that we are interested in fostering in this introductory General Education offering. The move to this unified textbook, supplemented and diversified by choices of each instructor (novels, stories, music, visual art, etc.), has allowed us to make certain that all of the SLO?s for the course are being met more consistently across the board. These relate to identifying, criticizing, interpreting and evaluating aspects of human concern in an integrated manner across the fields of literature, visual art, music, design and philosophy/religion. Most of the learning outcomes, we found in our review of the data, were being met. But since many students tended to be too narrow in their choice of “two works,” we are revising our assessment assignment in order better to ensure that the “integration across the course” criterion in particular is adequately met and measured (more detail below, re: HUM 228). The adoption of the LHE textbook has produced a greater sense of coherence within each course while providing the backbone for our students? broader exploration of interdisciplinary humanities. It has also led to greater coordination among the HUM 124 instructors, who are now better able to engage in dialogue about the course material fluidly and on a continual basis, sharing experiences and pedagogical strategies for the purpose of ensuring consistent student learning. Finally, since our Gen Ed students are taking HUM 124 as part of a series to fulfill Gen Ed Element 3 A/B requirements, this change has ensured that students from different sections of HUM 124 taken with different instructors have had a relatively similar experience and preparation for HUM 226 and HUM 228. HUM 228: The Search for Meaning: The Modern WorldIn our consideration of the Gen Ed Assessment data for HUM 228, it was determined that while most students were making progress in the areas of content comprehension and contextual analysis (social and historical understanding), many students needed additional help with written expression and formal analysis. Accordingly, when this course was offered in the Fall of 2011, greater attention was paid to these aspects in both lecture and in the grading of essays. Moreover, while the initial data report (Fall 2010) indicated that many students were ?integrating material across the course,? upon reflection and re-examination it was determined that (as with HUM 124 and 300W), while the “two or more works” criterion was met (the basis for this assessment), too many students were actually relying on works taken from one aspect or unit of the course, which is usually divided into 4 chronological and/or thematic sections. Accordingly, we are revising our assessment assignment (essay question on final exam) in order to demand that students be more inclusive and reaching in their effort at integration. In relation to this, we are concentrating more explicitly upon demonstrating continuities and connections among the different time periods and cultures examined in the course in order that students have a model for this kind of analysis when they are asked to perform it as part of their final integrative essay (the assessment assignment). The new assessment assignments for all Gen Ed courses (HUM 124, 226, 228 and 300W) will require students to make significant reference to at least two works from different thematic or chronological units of the course and/or different media and art forms. We feel that this change, to be implemented in all courses during the 2012-13 GE Assessment year, will result in greater assurance of learning with respect to “integration across the course,” especially, while supporting the other SLO?s as well. MUH: Music Appreciation (sample courses)The results show over half of students scoring in the competent or above categories. More students appear to be scoring in the “Accomplished” category, especially in the area of contextual analysis. Students are demonstrating an understanding of the style periods and culture. In preparation for this writing assignment, students had a session led by the music librarian about finding appropriate sources for writing about music. The prompt for the assignment was well-defined. That instruction and an improvement in the prompt has reinforced higher scoring on the essays. We will definitely continue with the same type of instruction about library resources in music.PHE 200: Dance and CultureI continually hone the directions for the PHE 200 project to more closely align with the General Education Assessment Protocol. I have had to change the order of the class to give the students more time to absorb and reflect on the material they will use for the project. I have also found that they need more interaction in class coming up with their theme and fully developing their argument for the paper. Giving the students a scoring guide and examples of past papers has helped improve the quality of their work. PHI 110: Beginning PhilosophyFaculty made changes to PHI 110 in the Fall of 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The data indicated that the areas of Comprehension, Clarity of Expression, and Integration were most in need of effort in terms of improving student learning. In response to the data concerning Comprehension, instructors stress the use of definitions of the appropriate philosophical terms in their presentation of the material and on assignments and exams. In response to the data concerning Clarity of Expression, instructors inform students of the many services provided by the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity and direct students struggling with Clarity of Expression to make an appointment with a Noel Consultant. In response to the data concerning Integration, instructors make greater use of activities that require students to apply the theoretical material to their personal and public lives, e.g., traditional philosophical thought experiments, current events, and other forms of popular culture. Instructors also make increased use of course Blackboard sites.PHI 371: Symbolic LogicFaculty made changes to PHI 371 in Fall 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The data indicated that the areas of Terminology, Execution, Operations, and Integration required the most effort in terms of improving student learning. Based on the assessment instrument that he designed as a result of the previous assessment cycle, the current instructor of PHI 371 is able to refine the quality and the quantity of the questions on the final exam in order to focus in the course on the areas that will best promote student learning as indicated by the General Education Scoring Rubric for Quantitative Courses.REL 301: World ReligionsFaculty made changes to REL 301 in the Fall of 2010 based on analysis of the Spring 2009 assessment data. The data indicated that the areas of Methods and Integration required the most effort in terms of improving student learning, although the results showed a marked improvement in these areas from the last assessment cycle. In response to the data concerning Methods, faculty provide more assignments and activities giving students the opportunity to engage in dialogue with each other about different religions, e.g., in small groups in class or for extra credit through the use of Campus Blogs on specific religions on the course Blackboard site. In response to the data concerning Integration, faculty provide additional opportunities for students to engage with individuals of different faiths, e.g., having students interview and participate in dialogue with somebody from a different faith and write a reflection paper on their thoughts before, during, and after the interview/dialogue.THE 100: Introduction to TheatreComparing the figures from May of 2010, we were very pleased with the results of Spring 2011. We saw a huge increase in students who scored a 3 (Competent) in all four areas assessed. Particularly encouraging was in increase in the area of Comprehension which went up from 5% in 2010 to 37% this spring. Students were much better about using terminology they had learned in class and using that terminology correctly! This was one of the areas that we had singled out for improvement and it appears that we were successful. In May 2010, students who scored a 1 (Beginning) ranged from a low of 7% to a high of 28%. Spring 2011 saw those numbers shrink to a low of 8% to a high of only 14% which is much more in line with our norms. Students scoring a 2 (Developing) in 2010 ranged from a low of 50% to a high of 67%. 2011 scores were a more balanced 38% to 45%.We were very pleased to see the improvement and more even distribution of percentages this spring. Another encouraging observation was made by the faculty. Many more students demonstrated the ability to separate their “like or dislike” of the script and/or subject matter from the “quality” of the production teams work. This level of critical thinking is just exactly what we wish the students to come away with.In summary, the theatre faculty was pleased with the results of the assessment and with the plans formed to improve student’s achievement of educational goals.Faculty members met and discussed the positive outcomes suggested by this assessment, which they attributed to changes they made in instruction as a result of last year’s assessment. They discussed the need to continue these instructional approaches. Specifically, more attention should be given to explaining the prompt and the importance of including all the information that the prompt requires.BLOCK IV &VII (ns): NATURAL SCIENCESANT 201: Introduction to Physical Anthropology Three points should be considered when reviewing the results. First, compared with the two previous assessments in 2009, I have included more objective questions, especially for assessing the applying scientific principles to make reasonable conclusions criterion.Secondly, the class demography has changed significantly. In Fall 2009, 201 had two different-sized sections (twenty-two and seven students); in Spring 2011 the three ANT 201 sections had roughly nineteen students each. Also, whereas most of Fall2009’snonmajors taking ANT 201 were criminal justice majors, the non-majors taking ANT 201 in Spring 2011 were mostly Animal Studies, Psychology, and History majors.Finally, we changed the course meeting schedule for ANT 201. In Fall 2009, we dedicated a third meeting session for the class, a dedicated 50-minute lab session. Since that semester, we reverted to two meeting days per week, with extra time on each day. We now have little difficulty providing the needed time for labs, application-oriented activities, and lectures. The course now routinely fills. In recent semesters, we have had some sections in which six students over the maximum have signed up for the class.BIO 121: Biology for MajorsThis is a course that is required of all our majors. Based on the Gen Ed Assessment we conducted in Spring 2011 and prior semesters, we found that our students displayed a competent level of understanding in all the assessment criteria. However, there were also some deficiencies, in the understanding of the methods, explaining of major concepts of biology, and most significantly in the application aspects. The faculty felt they were trying to convey too much information in the class, and this may perhaps be overwhelming the students. Therefore, during multiple weekend retreats a decision was made and a plan devised to split this class into a two semester sequence. These new courses are now BIO 111 (cellular and molecular Biology) and BIO 112 (Ecology and Evolution). These courses will rely heavily on critical and creative thinking skills. The lectures and labs have been completely redesigned, to promote active learning by the students. Faculty in these courses are also going to experiment by moving away from the traditional lecture format, to more of a studio based teaching. We believe that these changes will help the students grasp methods and concepts in Biology, and help them apply their understanding of biological principles to make valid conclusions.BIO 100: Introduction to BiologyThis is a course that fulfils Block IV, and hence is required of all students across campus. Based on the Gen Ed Assessments conducted in Spring 2011 and prior semesters, we found that close to 50% of the students in this course exhibited a beginning level, with respect to the following criteria:Application of Scientific Principles to make conclusionsIntegrationHence the faculty in these courses decided to take a closer look at the labs and how they integrated with the lecture in an attempt to improve on these two criteria. Labs are perhaps the best way for students to apply their knowledge of Biology and help them understand by actually doing science. As of Fall 2011, this course has completely redesigned labs to make it more hands-on for the students. In addition, a new textbook was also adopted in this course. Further, the lecture syllabus was standardized to coordinate with the labs. We believe that with these changes the student learning outcomes will improve significantly.BIO 171: Human AnatomyThis course satisfies Gen Ed Block VII (NS). Based on the Gen Ed Assessment conducted in Spring 2011, we found that overall the students exhibited a “Competent” level of understanding in all criteria, two criteria were cause for concern, they were:Application of scientific principles to address issues of importanceIntegrationThese results helped faculty of these courses to take a closer look at their course. As a result most of the content is now made available on Blackboard. Pictures of all Anatomical structures (bones) are available to students 24/7 so that students can review the material before and after class. Lectures have been revamped to help students relate the material to everyday life.AST: Astronomy (sample)The department is currently discussing the possibility of adding a laboratory component to some of the courses and applies to have the course included in Element 4B in the new GE program. While we feel this could be done, we are still in the very preliminary stages of this discussion. Resources for designing new courses are limited. The new laboratory component could help us improve especially students understanding of the methods used in astronomy and science more generally and would also give us more opportunity to work with students one-on-one to improve their ability to apply the course material to real problems.We are also in the process of improving our teaching methods. The department as a whole has made a strong movement toward using clicker technology to make the classroom a much more active-learning environment. We have also moved into a new technology-rich building with classrooms designed for more active pedagogical techniques. All of this makes us expect these results will continue to improve. We had hoped that requiring students to take MAT 105 or higher, would help better prepare students for coursework. The department is going to take a look at what we can do to:Improve the laboratory activities themselves, perhaps including a lab session that explicitly addresses scientific method.Find ways to create more connections between the laboratory activities and the lecture portion of class.CHE: Chemistry (sample) A review of the questions reveals that there is ambiguity with some of the questions that could cause problems, but most of the questions simply are relatively challenging and thus should not make up such a large proportion of the questions for a given criterion. The assessment instrument will be revised to provide a more reasonable range of difficulty before the next data collection event. Although the assessment instrument clearly needs revising, we also will continue to make improvements to the lecture lab coordination to address ongoing issues with application of the course material and integration across the course. We will continue to pursue better lab‐lecture connections and monitor the effect in the next data cycle.GEO 210: Introduction to Physical GeographyFaculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any concerns about assessment data for this course. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our 2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course. GLY: Geology (sample)Faculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any concerns about assessment data for this the lower level courses. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our 2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course. Faculty debated whether to create new assessment items for our upper-division geology courses or to turn our upper-division courses into lower-division courses. Faculty agreed that our 300-level Geology courses needed to be turned into lower-division courses and handed this matter over to the department curriculum committee. The department curriculum committee will submit paperwork for these items to the college in Fall 2012. Faculty agreed that GLY 302 does not fill a niche in the new general education curriculum and it will no longer be part of gen ed.PHY: Physics (sample)The PHY 101 course has changed substantially over the last two years and new laboratory activities are being developed and implemented. While we do this we are informing the decisions about pedagogy with this deficiency in the application area in mind. We also have new faculty members who have just started teaching the course. We are also reviewing the assessment exam to make sure it is still an appropriate tool to use in the course. Different material is sometimes covered in this course and we want to make the assessment either consistent with the content taught or independent of that material. We are also reviewing the assessment exam to make sure it is still an appropriate tool to use in the course. Different material is sometimes covered in this course and we want to make the assessment either consistent with the content taught or independent of that material. By next assessment we will likely have a very different set of questions on the exam. The assessment exam for PHY 102 is the same as for PHY 101. For the 200 level courses need to make sure we are reviewing material from the first course in the sequence, so that students can more clearly make the connection between the conceptsThe PHY 132 course will likely not remain in the new General Education Program as students will have taken PHY 131 which is a prerequisite for PHY 132. PHY 131 already satisfies the new Element 4B. Students will not need credit from this course to satisfy a General Education requirement.BLOCK V &VII (sbs): HISTORY & SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESAFA 202: The African-American ExperienceFaculty studied the assessment data from AFA 201/202 in Spring 2009 and 2010. In comparing the data and evaluating areas of strengths and weaknesses as provided by the data, faculty made changes to the course in Fall 2010 and subsequent semesters. Student learning outcomes were revaluated and modified to more accurately target and measure learning. In addition to proven instructional strategies, such group work and collaboration among class members, classroom simulations and role-playing, students were encouraged to attend outside events and interact with speakers as a way to broaden their viewpoints and encourage outside research on topics of interest. Instructors provided greater guidance as students initiated and completed work on the major class writing assignment. In order to provide further clarity on the subject and help resolve any research issues students may be experiencing, one-on-one-conferences were required of all students after abstracts and paper proposals were submitted to the instructor. All students were also advised to either visit the Writing Center or schedule a follow-up conference with the instructor to facilitate proper use of textual evidence, primary and secondary source documentation and formatting as well as clarity of expression.ANS 200: Animal StudiesThis is the first time I’ve taught the course, and I am the only instructor. I initially thought I could provide a “Methods” assessment, but the course is so interdisciplinary that there is no one method that can easily be assessed, and different students applied different approaches. The competence assessment is based on quizzes (usually multiple-choice) and is used to determine if students read the material. One student continued to do well on the quizzes while frequently reiterating to me that she had not done the readings, so I plan to increase the number of fill-in-the-blanks in the quizzes. I was in general pleased with the essay answers (assessing application); much of the problem with answers seemed to be ignoring relevant material or not writing clearly or well. The book review required the students to read two books from the Reaktion Press ANIMAL series, each of which is about a different animal, and to compare and contrast the two books (e.g., similarities and differences in their emphases, attitudes, etc.) and to include relevant course material. Most students did the former effectively, fewer did the latter at all. I will need to revise the instructions to make clearer that students need to integrate material from the course into their book review.APP 200: Introduction to AppalachiaThe assessment instrument shows that future attention may be given to describing more concretely the methods used in the various disciplines used in Appalachian Studies. The instructors also discussed the possibility of making some adjustments to the course to provide greater consistency in assignments. One option might be to require specific items (beyond a required text book, if any) for reading rather than allowing students to select, read, and review books/documents of their own choosing. We might also combine an essay with a more programmatic analysis that would specifically ask students to comment on a document’s content, argument, and methodology. The short essay to follow would ask students to Integrate that document into other approaches to the subject they have studied in class. That way, students would devote specific attention to each of the categories in the assessment rubric.ANT 200: Anthropology of Human SocietyIn early spring 2011, I called an ANT 200 meeting to review the new draft assessment questions that I wrote to match the new SLOs. This was actually the very first time all ANT 200 instructors were in the same room at the same time. This was a very productive meeting for many reasons; we not only vetted the assessment questions (with many subsequent tweaks) but we also shared various ideas on books and content, as well as straightened out a few misunderstandings. This was great – quite time-consuming, but great – and I wish I had done it sooner! I share the raw data with the assessment committee in large part to demonstrate the wide range in performance among the sections. Although I have not tried to do any kind of fancy analysis, a quick look indicates that in some instances it is true that KC’s (my) students scored higher, but certainly not in all. Thus, I believe the argument (in this case) is not demonstrated that outcome is determined by employment status (full vs. part-time instruction). Rather, I believe this wide range points to an enormous amount of noise in these data, revealing what we all know: assessment is far from an exact science. Nevertheless, since I’ve now completed these assessments a time or two, I do now believe the SLO and assessment questions align much better than they did in previous assessments. As well, in my view, previous assessment questions were far too easy, and the current outcomes may be a more accurate reflection of learning. As such, I believe that only now am I poised to actually utilize these data in the way they were intended – to improve student learning. HIS: History (Sample)The department determined that while the faculty focused heavily on developing students’ written and verbal communication skills, a key reason students were receiving lower than desired and expected scores in the base level skill of comprehension was that the faculty assumed that their students came in knowing how to read – in particular how to read for essential information/argument. Realizing this was a false assumption, faculty made improvement of students’ reading skills a key general education course objective. To achieve this objective, they have adopted such approaches as reading work sheets, reading expectation guides (what issues/questions students should be able to address after completing their reading assignment) and even adopting text books which guide students in identifying essential information and making them use what they have read to work through exercises which move them from the lower order skill of comprehension to the higher order skill of interpretation and analysis.ANT 120: Cultural AnthropologyThe results of this assessment will be shared with Anthropology 120 instructors. In addition, the Fall 2011 Anthropology 120 workshop will include a detailed discussion of the process and outcomes of the assessment. During that workshop, we will discuss areas for improvement in the delivery of the Anthropology 120 course and prioritize our goals. Course Textbook. Throughout the assessment development dialogue, a recurring issue was the course textbooks. The 2009 SLOs were developed to align with a textbook by Conrad Kottak, “Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity.” However, multiple textbooks were in use by anthropology faculty and the instructors. Those who were not using Kottak felt that the SLOs did not align with their course material as closely as the instructors who used the Kottak text. After discussion and consultation with Department Chair, the anthropology team decided to adopt the Kottak text as the common, consistent textbook for Anthropology 120 beginning in the Summer of 2011. While this will require adjustment for some instructors, this alignment will ensure that the course reflects the SLOs as the basis for student learning in the course. Course Supplemental Materials. The Anthropology 120 course has witnessed a number of leadership changes over the past 10 years. With a new full-time, tenure-track cultural anthropologist, the program has secured supplemental materials such as video to complement the Anthropology 120 course. Especially with regards to complex and controversial topics such as race and racism, these supplemental materials support the delivery of content directly related to the SLOs. The integration of these materials will likely increase the level of learning in the areas of comprehension and integration specifically. Assessment Process. To maintain an institutional record of the General Education assessment process, here I describe in detail the assessment process for the Spring of 2011. Throughout the Fall of 2010, I worked with Anthropology 120 instructors to develop a set of 20 assessment questions. Using the 2009 SLOs and the general education assessment rubric for Block V (comprehension, analysis, applications, methods, and integration), five thematic question areas were developed:Explain how, where, why, and with whom cultural anthropologists work. (METHODS, Questions 1-4)Articulate cultural anthropology's perspective on culture, race, ethnicity, and cultural relativism. (COMPREHENSION, Questions 6-9)Discuss cross-cultural understandings and/or practices of language, marriage, kinship, family, gender, race, making a living, religion, and art. (ANALYSIS, Questions 10-13)Understand the dynamic and integrated relationship?among humans,?culture, and the environment. (INTEGRATION, Questions 5, 14-16)See the broad impacts of colonialism and the modern world system on the world today. (APPLICATION, Questions 17-20)The Anthropology 120 team work shopped the 20 assessment questions throughout the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011, beginning with a workshop in the Fall. The process raised a number of important questions that we addressed with regards to the focus and goals of the Anthropology 120 course. By the end of the academic year, the Anthropology 120 was in agreement that the introduction of a consistent textbook would improve student learning. ECO: Economics (Sample)Overall, the assessment results suggest that students are making satisfactory progress in achieving the goals of general education in ECO 120 in both 2009 and 2010. The majority of students in ECO 120 are upper division students in education. The percentage of students rated as competent in each area may be higher than would be expected in a lower division economics course more heavily populated with lower division students. As might be expected, the majority of students were rated as competent for the knowledge/comprehension and methods criteria in both years. Both simply measure student ability to recognize economic concepts and the methods used in economic theory. The decrease in the percentage of students rated as competent in knowledge/comprehension and methods decreased slightly from 2009 to 2010. A lower percentage of students were rated as competent in application in both 2009 and in 2010, which measures student ability to engage in one form of critical thinking. Since application is more challenging than knowledge of concepts and methods, this result is expected. Again, the percentage of students rated as competent decreased from 2009 to 2010. The percentage of students rated as competent in integration is higher than the percentage rated as competent in application in both 2009 and 2010. This result is surprising and may suggest that the integration questions are too easy. Again, the percentage of students rated as competent decreased from 2009 to 2010. In each area the percentage of students rated as competent decreased from 2009 to 2010. This probably reflects instructor differences in teaching practices and the amount of time devoted to knowledge of topics measured on the assessment questions. The instructors assigned to ECO 120 will discuss these differences and/or edit the assessment questions to minimize the impact of instructor differences.We plan to use these results to improve our courses further. Each professor knows his or her own sections’ results and can alter their teaching if their students are not scoring as well on one particular criterion. While we might not be able to combat our students’ lack of mathematical-reasoning ability, we are emphasizing the tutoring possibilities for them. We have also been discussing the course objectives to make sure we cover what we feel the course should cover.One issue with this assessment is the nature of the assessment tool. By having several professors teach different sections of the same course, the criterion being assessed might change. For example, what is integration in one section might be application in another section that covered the connection between the topics. Also, the reading comprehension skills of the students seemed to play a factor. If an assessment question was worded in a style the students had seen before, they tended to score better, even if the topic being assessed was new. Consequently, it seemed that students tended to score better on questions written primarily by their own professors.The percentages of students being rated as competent or better were roughly 56 percent in methods, 57 percent in comprehension, 47 percent in application and analysis, and 34 percent in integration. Since application and integration are higher order critical thinking skills, the assessment results are consistent with expectations. Over time, the scores on all four criteria have generally risen. From Fall, 2006, through Fall, 2007, to Fall, 2009, the percentages of competent or better students for all four criteria rose (with the lone exception of the percentage judged competent or better at application and analysis between 2006 and 2007). [The percentages for Fall, 2008, were much higher than the others. That year seems to be an exception, perhaps due to some error in assembling the data or because the professors that year nearly coincided with the committee which wrote the assessment questions. It has been noted that students seem to score better when the phrasing matches other course assessments.] Omitting 2008, Fall, 2010, shows improvement over 2006, 2007, and 2009 for comprehension and application. Methods shows a marked increase (almost 10 percentage points), probably as a result of the “closing the loop” from the 2009 assessment cycle. Methods were emphasized more as a result of the previous year. Beginning in 2008 or 2009, an effort was made to demonstrate how the course is relatively cohesive, and so there has been increase in integration scores since. This is evidence that “closing the loop” from previous assessment cycles has been maintained.We plan to use these results to improve our courses further. Each professor knows his or her own sections’ results and can alter their teaching if their students are not scoring as well on one particular criterion. While we might not be able to combat our students’ lack of mathematical-reasoning ability, we are emphasizing the tutoring possibilities for them. We hope this will see an increase in comprehension.GEO 100: Regions and Nations of the WorldFaculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any concerns about assessment data for this course. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our 2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course. GEO 220: Human GeographyFaculty met at the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data. No faculty raised any concerns about assessment data for this course. Assessment data for this course were later reviewed by the department general education committee who found these data to be are consistent with data reported in our 2009 assessment report. Since those data met with faculty expectations, the committee deemed that no changes were necessary to the assessment process for this course. POL: Political Science (sample)Faculty will meet during the Fall 2011 semester to review the assessment data/results. At that meeting the faculty will discuss a variety of considerations regarding the assessment instrument including the nature of the instrument (multiple choice v. alternatives), the difficulty of the items on the instrument, the extent to which the assessment items align with stated course outcomes, student performance across the criteria/objectives, and possible pedagogical changes. It is hard to be certain what accounts for the declining scores in 2011. The assessment instrument and the instructions didn’t change, so that factor can be ruled out. It may be an issue related to specific sections. This is an issue I will explore more generally in a future meeting with the POL 100 faculty. Section 26527 was taught by me (Barracca). This section was a half-semester course that began after Spring Break. This type of course tends to be populated with a high percentage of students that dropped a full-semester course that they were failing. Consequently, this section likely attracted students that were struggling academically to begin with. Another approach is to look at the particular questions students did poorly on. The data indicate that students struggled most with the questions on social contract theory and Marxism. It might be fruitful to have the faculty discuss ways of improving the teaching of these concepts. Finally, it is possible that the change in 2011 may just be a result of sampling. Further assessments are needed to determine this with greater confidence. 4. Strategy for Improving As the assessment coordinator for the course, I plan to address these issues in the following ways: Discuss with instructors ways that we might better teach the concepts of social contract theory and Marxism. Since there has been considerable turnover in the faculty teaching POL 100 since the assessment instrument was first developed, we will have the current faculty review the concepts on the assessment to evaluate whether the terms are still appropriate or the best ones we could use. Students will be more strongly encouraged, earlier in the course, to acquire the basic knowledge and understanding they need for subsequent analysis and synthesis. We will continue to insist of the need for acquisition of knowledge, especially during the learning phase, because deliberation cannot be meaningful without the background knowledge. Study groups have been found helpful in addressing this need in the past, and will been couraged more forcefully in the future. PSY 200/280: Introduction to Psychology/ Life-Span DevelopmentThe assessment coordinator for the department of Psychology held a retreat for all instructors to discuss assessment data. We discussed several strategies to help students learn. One was to focus on less material. The field of psychology is large and diverse and introductory textbooks are getting larger and more complex every year. We discussed lesson plans that would focus on the most important material, and give students practice in thinking critically about that material using exercises, team work, videos, and homework assignments. We agreed to test more often, using low-stake testing, such as mini-quizzes, as this has been shown to increase learning. One faculty team developed critical thinking exercises using popular media reports of psychological research. They presented their work at a University-wide conference focused on critical thinking. Over the summer we intend to revise the current handbook for part-time faculty to incorporate more information on critical thinking strategies in the classroom, but we also want to ensure that full time faculty receive this portion of the handbook. SOC 131: Introduction to SociologyThe following specific actions were reported by Sociology 131 sociology faculty as techniques used to improve student learning based on earlier assessment findings. Responses are organized along the four General Education components:1) Comprehension, 2) Application and Analysis, 3) Methods, and 4) Integration. Comprehension:? New course materials with electronic flashcards emphasizing key concepts and terms for each chapter.Practice quizzes based on key concepts, resulting in improved student scores over past semesters.More quizzes (online and in class) that focus attention on specific concepts and topics.Application and Analysis:? The writing of reflective essays based on key terms and concepts from each chapter. Class presentations on these essays, with demonstrable evidence of application of sociological terms in both understanding of everyday life and of larger institutional structures.?The analysis of actual data from the United States Census and the CIA Factbook on income, comparative international measures of quality of life (GDP, infant mortality).The use of movies as “case studies” to demonstrate examples of sociological concepts (such as primary socialization and bureaucracy)in conjunction with written analyses as class assignments.Concept and theory application questions are included on all exams. ??The use of short research articles that relate to specific sections of material, with class discussions based on research article in class.Research article essay questions are included on exams. Methods:The use of secondary data which allows students to learn how to construct tables using simple descriptive statistics (i.e. percentages, measures of central tendency) and cross tabulations.The use of an interactive class assignments where students first complete a web- based survey in real time and then analyze the data using simple descriptive statistics for comparison.Integration:?The use of data to assess the explanatory power of theories (e.g. cross comparisons of country characteristics such as life expectancy, GDP, and fertility rates to assess the explanatory power of dependency and modernization theories).As the semester progresses, course lectures are designed to integrate previous concepts/topics in the class.? Exam application questions (all exams throughout the semester) require integration of material throughout the course.Theory, simple data analysis exercises, and methods are integrated into a series of short class assignments timed to coincide with coverage of class topics.SOC 235: Social ProblemsThe following specific actions were reported by Sociology 235 sociology faculty as techniques used to improve student learning based on earlier assessment findings. Responses are organized along the four General Education components:1) Comprehension, 2) Application and Analysis, 3) Methods, and 4) Integration. Comprehension:? Assignments are incorporated that have students summarize original research and chapters in the text.Application and Analysis:? Students in corporate sociological concepts from course materials so that they can apply these concepts to a social problem they have chosen for their research paper.Methods: Assignments focus on "what makes a quality source" which emphasizes methodological quality.Assignments focus on different approaches to data collection.Integration:?Assignments are designed to foster skills for integrating knowledge, data, methods, application, and analysis while using sociological concepts and theories related to current social problems.SWK 310: Social Welfare Policy HistoryThis was the first time a social work class had been assessed as a general education course and the assessment has been a learning process. Since two separate assignments and assessment tools were used, the findings cannot be generalized. The same assignment and assessment rubric will be used during the next assessment of SWK 310.It appears that comprehension and methods are the strongest areas, which is to be expected of sophomore level students. Application progress was higher than expected at almost 85% at competent level or above. Appendix EChanges to EKU’s General Education Program (Effective fall 2012)NEW PROGRAM EFFECTIVE FALL 2012 256540119380 Element 1:IA: Written Communication I3 hrs.IB: Written Communication II3 hrs.IC: Oral Communication3 hrs. Element 2: Mathematics3 hrs. Element 3:3A: Arts3 hrs.3B: Humanities3 hrs. or 3 A/B Integrated A&H6 hrs. Element 4: Natural Sciences6hrs Element 5:5A: Historical Perspectives3 hrs.5B: Social and Behavioral Sci.3 hrs. Element 6: Diversity of Perspectives & Experiences6 hrs.TOTAL GE Program: 36 hrs.00 Element 1:IA: Written Communication I3 hrs.IB: Written Communication II3 hrs.IC: Oral Communication3 hrs. Element 2: Mathematics3 hrs. Element 3:3A: Arts3 hrs.3B: Humanities3 hrs. or 3 A/B Integrated A&H6 hrs. Element 4: Natural Sciences6hrs Element 5:5A: Historical Perspectives3 hrs.5B: Social and Behavioral Sci.3 hrs. Element 6: Diversity of Perspectives & Experiences6 hrs.TOTAL GE Program: 36 hrs.Previous General Education Program at EKU (GE-06)*Fall 2012 Assessment Data are based on this programGeneral Education Core (33 hours) Block munication (9 hours) I-A and I-BWritten Communication (6 hours)ANDI-COral Communication (3 hours)Block II.Mathematics (3 hours) Block III.Arts and Humanities (6 hours)III-A One arts course (3 hours)ANDIII-BOne humanities course (3 hours)ORIII-CTwo humanities courses (6 hours)Block IV.Natural Sciences (6 hours) IV-AOne biological science laboratory course (3 hours)ANDIV-BOne physical science laboratory course (3 hours)Block V.Social and Behavioral Sciences (9 hours)V-AOne history course (3 hours)ANDV-BOne social and behavioral science course (3 hours)ANDV-COne additional V-A or V-B course (3 hours) University General Education (15 hours) EKU SPECIFIC Block VIWellness (3 hours)Block VIIBreadth of Knowledge (6 hours). Two courses from two different areas: arts and humanities(ah), natural sciences(ns), quantitative skills(qs), and social and behavioral sciences(sbs). Block VIIIDepth of Knowledge (6 hours)Six hours of coursework from:Coherent block of supporting courses for a specific degree program. (6 hours) (Note: Each degree program will decide whether to specify supporting courses for this option.)ORSecond Language (American Sign or Foreign Language) (6 hours)ORTwo courses in the same theme (6 hours) (Note: Theme courses are designed by faculty, and approved by the General Education Committee.)Appendix FEKU’s General Education Scoring RubricsGeneral Education Scoring Guide for WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONRevised June 2008*COMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2-DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1-BeginningInadequate in Meeting Course ExpectationsAudience/Tone(GE Goal 1,2)Precisely demonstrates recognition of audience and sets relevant tone. Engages an audience effectively.Demonstrates recognition of audience and sets relevant tone most of the time.Is inconsistent in recognition of audience and setting of relevant tone. Fails to demonstrate recognition of audience and/or set relevant anizationIntegration(GE Goal 2,8)Fairly and accurately synthesizes sources and integrates relevant information, with significant depth and breadth.Fairly and accurately synthesizes sources and integrates relevant information.Synthesizes sources and integrates relevant information, but is not always fair and/or accurate.Does not synthesize sources and/or integrate relevant anizationCohesion(GE Goal 2,8)Organization is clear and logical (parts make sense together; no contradictions). Organization is creative and anization is clear and logical (parts make sense together; no contradictions)Organization is mostly clear and logical (most parts make sense together; may be some contradictions).Organization is not clear and/or logical (parts do not make sense together and/or there are many contradictions).Control of Written LanguageSentence Structure/ Syntax (GE Goal 1)Writing is clear, accurate, and precise virtually all of the time. Elegant sentence structure; fluid integration of terms.Writing is clear, accurate, and precise most of the time.Writing is clear and accurate some of the time. May have some awkward sentences.Writing is rarely clear and/or accurate. May have many awkward sentences. Control of Written LanguageWord Choice/Vocabulary (GE Goal 1)Uses accurate, relevant, and precise vocabulary virtually all of the time.Uses accurate and relevant vocabulary most of the time.Limited use of accurate and relevant vocabulary.Rarely uses accurate and/or relevant vocabulary.Surface Features (GE Goal 1)Nearly error free, accurate use of punctuation, grammar, capitalization, relevant citation format, etc. Accurately uses punctuation, grammar, capitalization, relevant citation format, etc. with minor or minimal errors that do not interfere with clarity.Major and/or frequent errors in use of punctuation, grammar, capitalization, relevant citation format, etc. Errors sometimes interfere with clarity.Major and/or frequent errors in use of punctuation, grammar, capitalization, relevant citation format, etc. Errors often interfere with rmationLiteracy(GE Goal 1)Selects relevant, accurate, appropriate, and significant sources.Selects relevant, accurate, and appropriate sources.Selects some relevant, accurate, and appropriate sources.Selects virtually no relevant, accurate, and/or appropriate sources.EKU General Education Scoring Rubric for ORAL COMMUNICATIONRevised 2009COMPETENCY 4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2- DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1- BeginningDoes Not Meet Course ExpectationsStructureClearly and strategically organized introduction, main points, and conclusion; unfolds logically. Skillful use of transitions. Clearly organized introduction, main points, and conclusion; unfolds logically. Skillful use of transitions. Somewhat organized introduction, main points, and conclusion; unfolds somewhat logically but listener(s) must put effort into following speaker. Some use of transitions.Overall disorganization. Difficult to follow logic. Poor or no use of transitions. ContentIntegrates relevant, accurate, recent information/research with significant breadth, depth with significant breadth, depth and creativity. Displays sensitivity when discussing ethical issues with perceptivity and insight. Sources clearly and accurately cited throughout presentation. Integrates relevant, accurate, recent information/research with sufficient breadth and with sufficient breadth and depth. Displays sensitivity when discussing ethical issues. Sources clearly and accurately cited in some portions of presentation. Integrates some information/research but may at times be irrelevant at times be irrelevant, inaccurate, or outdated. Displays some sensitivity when discussing ethical issues. Sources cited in some portions of presentation. Does not integrate information/research. Displays little or no sensitivity. Displays little or no sensitivity when discussing ethical issues. No sources cited. ContextExceeds expectation of the presentation goals (informative, persuasive, ceremonial, etc.). Offers novel approach to the goals of the presentation. Adheres to proper time limits. Message suitable to occasion. Meets expectation of the presentation goals (informative, persuasive, ceremonial, etc.) Adheres to proper time limits. Message suitable to occasion. Marginally meets expectation of the presentation goals (informative, persuasive, ceremonial, etc.) Problems adhering to proper time limits. Message suitable to occasion. Fails to meet expectation of the presentation goals. Does not adhere to time limits. Message not suitable to occasion. ORAL COMMUNICATION continuedCOMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2- DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1- BeginningDoes Not Meet Course ExpectationsAudience AwarenessMasterfully makes content (language, examples, narratives, data, statistics, etc.) relevant to the audience. Develops strong rapport with audience. Makes content (language, examples, narratives, data, statistics, etc.) relevant to the audience. Develops rapport with audience. Occasionally makes content (language, examples, narratives, data, statistics, etc.) relevant to the audience. Develops some rapport with audience. Fails to make content relevant to audience. Develop little or no rapport with audience. Oral DeliveryLanguage is not only free of serious errors in grammar, pronunciation, articulation, and word usage, but language use is vivid, unusually interesting, Language is free of serious errors in grammar, pronunciation, articulation, and word usage. Language may contain some errors in grammar, pronunciation, articulation, and word usage. Language contains several serious errors in grammar, pronunciation, articulation, and word usage. Nonverbal Deliverytone volume pitch tone, volume, pitch, gestures, rate, posture, eye contact, facial expression, vocal variety, fluency, vocalized pauses (ums, ahs, like, you know, etc.)Exceptional use of nonverbal cues to emphasize, highlight and enhance language and enhance language. Absence of vocalized pauses. Nonverbal cues do not distract listeners from the presentation. Speaker appears natural, sincere, confident, and energetic. Speaker does not read speech. Nonverbal cues are appropriately used to support the language Few vocalized the language. Few vocalized pauses. Nonverbal cues do not distract listeners from the presentation. Speaker appears natural, sincere, confident, and energetic. Speaker does not read speech. Nonverbal cues are used to support the language, but are sometimes incongruent or sometimes incongruent or distracting. Nonverbal cues do not support the language and are distracting. Presentation AidsPresentation aids vividly and memorably enhance, reinforce, illustrate, and support presentation but do not substitute for the speech. Aids are well-designed, clear, and skillfully incorporated. Speaker does not read from the presentation aid. Presentation aids enhance, reinforce, illustrate, and support presentation but do not substitute for the speech. Aids are well-designed, clear, and skillfully incorporated. Speaker does not read from the presentation aid. Presentation aids somewhat support presentation. Speaker sometimes reads from presentation aid. Presentation aids fail to support presentation or are poorly designed or implemented. Aids distract from presentation. Speaker reads from presentation aid. General Education Scoring Guide for ARTS & HUMANITIESRevised June 2008COMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2-DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1-BeginningInadequate in Meeting Course ExpectationsN/AComprehension(GE Goal 6)Demonstrates accurate, clear, and precise comprehension of significant concepts.Demonstrates accurate comprehension of significant concepts.Demonstrates limited or inexact comprehension of significant concepts. (Not always accurate)Fails to demonstrate comprehension of significant concepts. (Not accurate)Clarity of Expression(GE Goal 2)Expresses ideas through sentences that are clearly formulated, grammatically correct, and stylistically compelling. Displays a logical line of reasoning.Expresses ideas through sentences that are clearly formulated, grammatically correct, and stylistically competent. May display some lapses in logic.Expresses ideas that are intelligible, but effective communication is impaired by grammatical flaws (not always clear). Displays lapses in logic.Fails to formulate grammatically correct and/or intelligible sentences (unclear). Little/no logical line of reasoning. Formal/Structural Analysis (GE Goal 2,6,7)Provides accurate, relevant, and precise analysis of stylistic features, techniques, or methods employed in the work(s).Provides accurate and relevant analysis of stylistic features, techniques, or methods employed in the work(s).Provides limited relevant analysis of stylistic features, techniques, or methods employed in the work(s). Not always accurate.Fails to provide relevant analysis of stylistic features, techniques, or methods employed in the work(s) or provides inaccurate analysis.Contextual Analysis (GE Goal 2,6)Accurately and precisely locates particular works and/or cultural movements in relation to multiple relevant contexts. Identifies and elaborates on the manner in which these contexts influence the work(s).Accurately locates particular works and/or cultural movements in relation to some relevant contexts. Identifies the manner in which these contexts influence the work(s). Approximately locates works and/or cultural movements in relation to some relevant contexts. May have some inaccuracies. Shows a general awareness of how the contexts influence the work(s).Fails to locate or inaccurately locates works and/or cultural movements in relation to relevant contexts. Shows no awareness of how these contexts influence the work(s).ARTS & HUMANITIES ContinuedCOMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2-DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1-BeginningInadequate in Meeting Course ExpectationsN/ATheoretical Application(GE Goal 2,6,7)Accurately, precisely, and creatively applies relevant methods, models, and/or perspectives for the purpose of evaluating work(s), addressing issues, or solving problems.Accurately applies relevant methods, models, and/or perspectives for the purpose of evaluating work(s), addressing issues, or solving problems.Applies with limited success (not always accurate) relevant methods, models, and/or perspectives for the purpose of evaluating work(s), addressing issues, or solving problems.Fails to apply or inaccurately applies relevant methods, models, and/or perspectives for the purpose of evaluating work(s), addressing issues, or solving problems.Methods(GE Goal 7)Demonstrates an accurate and precise understanding of relevant methods used to gather evidence to support conclusions.Demonstrates an accurate understanding of relevant methods used to gather evidence to support conclusions.Demonstrates an incomplete understanding (not always accurate) of relevant methods used to gather evidence to support conclusions. May not always be accurate.Fails to demonstrate an understanding or demonstrates inaccurate understanding of relevant methods used to gather evidence to support conclusions.Integration Across Course(GE Goal 2, 8)Accurately, deeply and broadly integrates relevant information and significant concepts and principles in a logical manner.Accurately integrates relevant information and significant concepts and principles in a logical manner.Accurately integrates some relevant information and significant concepts and principles in a logical manner.Fails to integrate or inaccurately integrates relevant information and/or significant concepts and principles.General Education Scoring Guide for MATHEMATICSRevised Summer 2008COMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2-DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1-BeginningInadequate in Meeting Course ExpectationsN/AComprehension(GE Goal 2)N/AAdequately comprehends the major concepts of the courseIncompletely comprehends the major concepts of the courseInadequately comprehends the major concepts of the courseAppropriate use of terminology and notation (GE Goal 2)Uses terminology and notation appropriately in all instancesUses terminology and notation appropriately in most instancesUses some appropriate terminology and notation Often misuses, or fails to use, terminology and notationExecution of appropriate strategies for solving problems(GE Goals 2 & 7)Executes a creative or sophisticated solution for solving a problemExecutes an appropriate strategy for solving each problemSometimes selects an inappropriate or inefficient strategy Often selects an inappropriate or inefficient strategyUse of mathematical/logical operations (GE Goal 2)Uses mathematical/logical operations appropriately in all instancesUses mathematical/logical operations appropriately in most instancesUses some appropriate mathematical/logical operations Often misuses, or fails to use, mathematical/logical operations Interpretation of the meaning of solutions in the context of the problem(s)(GE Goals 2 & 7) Clearly and completely articulates a sophisticated interpretation of the data, and/or makes sophisticated inferences in the context of the problem(s)Interprets data in the context of the problem(s) and makes appropriate inferencesIncompletely interprets data and/or makes some incomplete or inappropriate inferencesInappropriately interprets data and/or makes incorrect inferencesIntegration across course(GE Goals 2 & 8)Fully integrates relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesIntegrates most relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesIntegrates some relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesFails to integrate relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesGeneral Education Scoring Guide for NATURAL SCIENCESRevised 2006COMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2-DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1-BeginningInadequate in Meeting Course ExpectationsN/ADemonstrate an understanding of the methods used to carry out scientific inquiry(GE Goal 7)Demonstrates superior understanding of the methods used in scienceDemonstrates an understanding of the methods used in scienceDemonstrates incomplete understanding of the methods used in scienceDemonstrates inadequate understanding of the methods used in scienceExplaining the major concepts of the natural sciences (GE Goal 5)Fully comprehends major concepts and meaningful relationships of scienceAdequately comprehends the major concepts of scienceIncomplete comprehension of the major concepts of scienceInadequate comprehension of the major concepts of scienceApplying scientific principles to make reasonable and valid conclusions(GE Goal 2 & 5)Consistently applies scientific principles to make reasonable and valid conclusionsMost of the time applies scientific principles to make reasonable and valid conclusionsSometimes applies scientific principles to make reasonable and valid conclusionsDoes not apply scientific principles to make reasonable and valid conclusionsApplying scientific knowledge to address issues of personal and public importance (GE Goal 2,5,8)Consistently applies scientific knowledge to address issues of personal and public importanceMost of the time applies scientific knowledge to address issues of personal and public importanceSometimes applies scientific knowledge to address issues of personal and public importanceDoes not apply scientific knowledge to address issues of personal and public importanceIntegration across course(GE Goal 2,5,8)Fully integrates relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesIntegrates most relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesIntegrates some relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesFails to integrate relevant information, meaningful concepts, and important principlesGeneral Education Scoring Guide for HISTORY & SOCIAL SCIENCESRevised 2006COMPETENCY4-AccomplishedExceeds Course Expectations3-CompetentMeets Course Expectations2-DevelopingIncomplete in Meeting Course Expectations1-BeginningInadequate in Meeting Course ExpectationsN/AComprehensionGE Goals:History 3 SBS 4Comprehends the important concepts of the discipline as well as subsidiary and implicit aspectsComprehends the important concepts of the disciplineComprehends some of the important concepts of the disciplineComprehends few of the important concepts of the disciplineApplication and AnalysisGE Goals:History 2,3 SBS 2, 4Uses relevant concepts/theories insightfully in different contextsUses relevant concepts/theories in different contextsUses relevant concepts/theories in different contexts, but in an incomplete or superficial mannerDoes not use relevant concepts/theories in different contextsInterpretation and EvaluationGE Goals:History: 7 Establishes a conclusive position or interpretation through the development of a cogent line of reasoning; Discusses implications and consequencesEstablishes a conclusive position with some justification; Identifies implications and consequencesAsserts a position or interpretation, but fails to provide adequate justification; Limited identification of implications and consequences Fails to establish any recognizable conclusionMethodsGE Goals:History 7 SBS 7Demonstrates a superior understanding of methods used in the disciplineDemonstrates an understanding of methods used in the disciplineDemonstrates an incomplete understanding of methods used in the disciplineFails to demonstrate understanding of methods used in the disciplineIntegrationGE Goals:History 2,3,8 SBS 2,4,8Fully integrates relevant information, appropriate perspectives, and important principlesIntegrates most relevant information, appropriate perspectives, and important principlesIntegrates some relevant information, appropriate perspectives, and important principlesFails to integrate relevant information, appropriate perspectives, and important principlesAppendix GDescription of Assessment Instruments by GE BlockGE BlockDescription of Assessment Instruments IA & B: Written CommunicationEnd-of-term papers. Random sample from all sections evaluated by faculty teamsIC: Oral CommunicationEnd-of-term video recordings of oral presentations: Random sample from all sections evaluated by faculty teamsII: MathematicsEnd-of-term objective exam with calculations and interpretations: All students or random sample from all sections (depending on course enrollment). Work scored by graduate students and/or faculty.III: Arts & HumanitiesEnd-of-term papers/essays: All students or random sample from all sections. Work scored by faculty teams.IV: Natural SciencesEnd-of-term tests including objective and subjective items: All students or random sample from all sections. Work scored by machine (if multiple-choice) or faculty.V: History & Social/Behavioral SciencesHistory: End-of-term essays: All students or random sample from all sections. Work scored by faculty teams. Social science: End-of-term tests including objective and subjective items. All students or random sample from all sections. Work scored by machine (if multiple choice) or faculty. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download