assessment report for intd 184 eloquentia perfecta ... · pdf fileassessment report for intd...

Assessment Report

for

INTD 184 – Eloquentia Perfecta Foundations

Fall 2013 and Spring 2014

June 30, 2014

Submitted by:

Dr. Yaodong Bi, Computing Sciences Prof. Mary Beth Holmes, Communication Prof. Paul M. Jackowitz, Computing Sciences Dr. Rebecca Mikesell, Communication Prof. Betsy Moylan, Weinberg Memorial Library Prof. Bonnie Oldham, Weinberg Memorial Library Dr. Kimberly Pavlick, Communication Prof. Richard Plishka, Computing Sciences

Assessment Report for INTD 184 – Eloquentia Perfecta Foundations, Fall 2013 and Spring 2014

June 26, 2014

Part I - Overview

Background

The document, Eloquentia Perfecta Foundation – Oral and Digital Proficiency , General Education Goals and

Objectives, Draft of May 4, 2013, (herein referred to as the “Goals and Objectives,” and provided as an

attachment), was approved by the Faculty Senate at its May 2013 Meeting and was given to the Conference

Committee on Curriculum (CCC) to be used as the basis for considering courses seeking the EP designation.

INTD 184 – Eloquentia Perfecta Foundations was subsequently approved by the CCC as a three credit “Pilot

Course” to be offered during the 2013-2014 Academic Year with the stipulation that an assessment of the

course be done and submitted to the CCC.

Participating Faculty

The following eight full-time faculty members have been regularly and significantly involved in the development

and delivery of INTD 184, beginning in June 2013 and continuing to the present. The six faculty members from

the Departments of Communication and Computing Sciences collaborated in “co-teaching” each section offered

(in various pairings, with one faculty member from each department) and were officially listed as the instructors

for the sections. The two faculty librarians served as liaisons to several additional faculty librarians, and along

with their librarian colleagues were “embedded” in individual sections of the course.

Name Department Fall 2013 Spring 2014

Dr. Yaodong Bi Computing Sciences 2 Sections

Prof. Mary Beth Holmes Communication 1 Section

Prof. Paul M. Jackowitz Computing Sciences 2 Sections 2 Sections

Dr. Rebecca Mikesell Communication 3 Sections 4 Sections

Prof. Betsy Moylan Library

Prof. Bonnie Oldham Library

Dr. Kimberly Pavlick Communication 2 Sections 2 Sections

Prof. Richard Plishka Computing Sciences 2 Sections 4 Sections

Six sections of INTD 184 were offered during Fall 2013 (involving approximately 106 students) .

Interdisciplinary - Fall 2013 Semester

INTD 184 1 3.0 ST: EP Foundation MWF 08:00am - 08:50am 18 18 0 Kimberly A. Pavlick, Yaodong Bi

1 08/26 - 12/14 LSC 118 Eloquentia Perfecta

INTD 184 2 3.0 ST: EP Foundation MWF 10:00am - 10:50am 18 18 0 Kimberly A. Pavlick, Yaodong Bi


INTD 184 3 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 09:00am - 09:50am 18 17 1 Richard M. Plishka, Rebecca L. Mikesell


INTD 184 4 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 11:00am - 11:50am 18 18 0 Richard M. Plishka, Mary Beth Holmes


INTD 184 5 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 12:00pm - 12:50pm 18 17 1 Paul M. Jackowitz, Rebecca L. Mikesell


INTD 184 6 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 01:00pm - 01:50pm 18 18 0 Paul M. Jackowitz, Rebecca L. Mikesell



June 26, 2014

Six sections were offered during Spring 2014 (involving approximately 96 students). Sections 5 and 6 were

added very close to the start of the semester and it is thought that this is the reason why these two sections did

not close out.

Interdisciplinary - Spring 2014 Semester

INTD 184 1 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 08:00am - 08:50am 18 17 1 Richard M. Plishka, Rebecca L. Mikesell


INTD 184 2 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 09:00am - 09:50am 18 18 0 Rebecca L. Mikesell, Richard M. Plishka


INTD 184 3 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 11:00am - 11:50am 18 18 0 Rebecca L. Mikesell, Richard M. Plishka


INTD 184 4 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MWF 12:00pm - 12:50pm 18 18 0 Rebecca L. Mikesell, Richard M. Plishka


INTD 184 5 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MW 03:00pm - 04:15pm 18 14 4 Paul M. Jackowitz, Kimberly A. Pavlick


INTD 184 6 3.0 ST: EP Foundations MW 03:00pm - 04:15pm 18 11 7 Kimberly A. Pavlick, Paul M. Jackowitz


Course Syllabi and Calendars

INTD 184 was proposed, developed and delivered by some of the same faculty who contributed significantly to

the development of the Goals and Objectives; in particular, Prof. Jackowitz and Dr. Mikesell. As such, the

design of INTD 184 is very close to what is articulated in the Goals and Objectives and thus may be considered to

be the prototype course for this requirement. It should be noted that the Goals and Objectives document was

developed and approved prior to the recent Middle-States driven focus on “Student Learning Outcomes” (SLOs)

and so its format and language is instead modeled closely after that used in the older General Education

documents used by the CCC.

A common Syllabus was developed and used for each of the semesters; each section’s syllabus differed only in

the contact information provided for the instructors, faculty librarians and Graduate Teaching Assistants. A

detailed Calendar presenting a “class meeting by class meeting” plan for the semester was also developed and

was deemed necessary given the need for very close collaboration between the two instructors. This

collaboration extended beyond the individual sections, as the six faculty members met often and departmental

colleagues met even more often sharing experiences, ideas and materials. The Syllabi and Course Calendars

used in Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 are provided as attachments.

The Fall 2013 Calendar used an “interleaved” approach whereby class meetings were held three times a week

and each class meeting was specified as being conducted by either the faculty member from Communication,

Computing Sciences, the Library or was jointly run my multiple faculty members. A similar calendar was

developed and followed by Dr. Mikesell and Prof. Plishka for the four sections they co-taught in Spring 2014.

For Spring 2014, Prof. Jackowitz and Dr. Pavlick developed a “concurrent” approach and used it for the two

sections they co-taught. In this approach, class meetings were held two times a week and the two sections were

scheduled at the same time. A pattern was followed whereby each faculty member generally spent half of the

75 minute class period with each section. On multiple occasions the two sections were combined in a common


June 26, 2014

room with either one or multiple instructors present. Both Jackowitz and Pavlick had taught during Fall 2013

using the interleaved calendar but were interested in exploring the viability of this alternative approach. Initial

impressions and results were most positive; in particular, both instructors liked the flexibility afforded by this

approach.

Assessment Plan

The assessment plan for INTD 184 was developed during the summer of 2013 and so it too predates the recent

focus on SLOs. The primary assessment tool developed and used is an extensive (75 question) multiple choice

“Assessment Test” designed to specifically measure student outcomes directly related to the objectives stated in

the Goals and Objectives document. The test was designed to be administered as a Pre-Test and as a Post-Test

so that results could be directly compared. This Assessment Test has the following sections:

Communication Objectives - 33 Questions, dealing with concepts, applications and issues related to

Public Speaking, as related to Goal I – Oral Communication, and broken down into the following

categories:

o Gathering, Evaluating Material and Audience Analysis

o Structure and Analysis

o Formal and Informal Situations (and Immediacy)

o Anxiety

o Credibility

o Language

o Effective Listening

o Effective Use of Technology

o Consequential Objectives

Digital Objectives – 34 Questions, dealing with concepts, applications and issues related to Digital

Technology, as related to Goal II – Digital Information Technology, and broken down into the following

categories:

o Digital Foundations – 18 Questions

o Digital Applications – 8 Questions

o Digital Consequential Issues – 8 Questions

Library – 8 Questions.

One very important aspect of this test is that each question presents a fifth alternative response that states “I do

not know the answer,” and the instructions provided to students explicitly asked them to select this response

“in those cases where you do not understand the question or when selecting from among the other alternatives

would be a mere guess.” This is indicative of the desire to measure what students were unfamiliar with, and

what they became familiar with as a result of completing the course.

The Assessment Test (highlighting the correct answers) is provided as an attachment.


June 26, 2014

Assessment Overview

Fall 2013

INTD 184 students took the Pre-Test during the time between the first class meeting and the second class

meeting of the semester. They did so in a controlled setting, authenticated and proctored by a Graduate

Teaching Assistant. The INTD 184 students then took the Post-Test immediately after completing the Final

Examination for the course, in the same setting as the final exam, proctored by the course instructors.

The data from the Pre-Test and Post-Test were analyzed and accumulated into an internal report that was used

by the course instructors to evaluate the fall semester in preparation for the spring semester. This report is

provided as one of the attachments.

Spring 2014

As in the fall, INTD 184 students took the full Pre-Test during the time between the first class meeting and the

second class meeting of the semester. They did so in a controlled setting, authenticated and proctored by a

Graduate Teaching Assistant. INTD 184 students then took the Post-Test at the same time and in the same

location as the common Final Examination and were proctored by the course instructors.


June 26, 2014

Part II – Results of Assessment Test by Section

Here the results of the Assessment Test are presented section by section, with a detailed explanation of the

format given for this first section, Communication Objectives. Each result is presented in a graphical form

followed by a more detailed tabular form.

Figure 1 - Communication Objectives

The Communication Objectives section of the Assessment Test deals with concepts, applications and issues

related to Public Speaking.

Figure 1 shows the results of the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 Assessment Tests, with the results for Fall 2013

depicted in the leftmost columns and those for Spring 2014 in the rightmost columns. The focus is on the

changes between the Pre-Tests and Post-Tests.

Note that for Fall 2013 the average EP correct score increased from 57% on the Pre-Test to 67% on the Post-

Test, and for Spring 2014 the average EP correct score increased from 56% to 65%. These measures represent

the average correct answers as a percentile. Note that the “I do not know the answer” response average

(labeled as DNK for Did Not Know) shows significant decreases for both semesters.


June 26, 2014

Communication Objectives

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 10% 9%

DNK -8% -10%

< -15% 5% 9%

-15%…0% 13% 10%

0%…15% 43% 36%

15%…30% 33% 34%

30%…45% 5% 11%

45% > 2% 0%

Table 1 - Communication Objectives

Table 1 presents the same information as Figure 1, but with additional information provided. Labeling in the top

part of the table:

N – refers to the number of students who completed both the Pre and Post Assessment Tests in the

corresponding population

Change – refers to the change in the percentage of correct answers from Pre-Test to Post-Test

DNK – refers to the change in the percentage of “I do not know the answer” responses from Pre-Test to

Post-Test

The lower part of the table shows the percentage changes (for correct answers from Pre-Test to Post-Test) for

various intervals.

For example, this table indicates that a total of 81% of the Spring 2014 EP students increased their scores; 36%

had increases between 0 and 15%, 34% had increases between 15% and 30%, 11% had increases between 30%

and 45%, and that no students increased their scores by 45% or more.

Decrease of more than 15%

Decrease of up to 15%

Increase of between 0% and 15%



Increase of 45% or more


June 26, 2014

Figure 2 - Digital Objectives

Digital Objectives

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 19% 17%

DNK -21% -25%

< -15% 1% 2%

-15%…0% 1% 6%

0%…15% 38% 33%

15%…30% 45% 49%

30%…45% 15% 9%

45% > 1% 1%

Table 2 - Digital Objectives


June 26, 2014

Figure 3 - Library Objectives

Library

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 14% 1%

DNK -9% -6%

< -15% 3% 16%

-15%…0% 10% 16%

0%…15% 50% 51%

15%…30% 22% 14%

30%…45% 12% 3%

45% > 4% 0%

Table 3 - Library Objectives


June 26, 2014

Part III – Results of Assessment Test by Categories within each Section

Figure 4 - Communication: Gathering, Evaluating Material and Audience Analysis

Communication: Gathering, Evaluating Material and Audience Analysis

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 24% 21%

DNK -12% -14%

< -15% 6% 13%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 21% 12%

15%…30% 33% 38%

30%…45% 29% 26%

45% > 12% 11%

Table 4 - Communication: Gathering, Evaluating Material and Audience Analysis


June 26, 2014

Figure 5 - Communication: Structure and Analysis

Communication: Structure and Analysis

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 23% 23%

DNK -18% -23%

< -15% 10% 11%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 23% 19%

15%…30% 29% 30%

30%…45% 21% 22%

45% > 18% 18%

Table 5 - Communication: Structure and Analysis


June 26, 2014

Figure 6 - Communication: Formal and Informal Situations (and Immediacy)

Communication: Formal and Informal Situations (and Immediacy)

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 7% -2%

DNK -7% -5%

< -15% 20% 27%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 43% 44%

15%…30% 24% 20%

30%…45% 0% 0%

45% > 14% 9%

Table 6 - Communication: Formal and Informal Situations (and Immediacy)


June 26, 2014

Figure 7 - Communication: Anxiety

Communication: Anxiety

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 11% 5%

DNK -9% -10%

< -15% 17% 19%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 40% 47%

15%…30% 0% 0%

30%…45% 33% 29%

45% > 11% 6%

Table 7 - Communication: Anxiety


June 26, 2014

Figure 8 - Communication: Credibility

Communication: Credibility

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 8% -1%

DNK -3% 3%

< -15% 18% 24%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 49% 47%

15%…30% 0% 0%

30%…45% 0% 0%

45% > 34% 29%

Table 8 - Communication: Credibility


June 26, 2014

Figure 9 - Communication: Language

Communication: Language

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 6% 8%

DNK 0% -3%

< -15% 18% 18%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 54% 46%

15%…30% 0% 0%

30%…45% 0% 0%

45% > 28% 37%

Table 9 - Communication: Language


June 26, 2014

Figure 10 - Communication: Effective Listening

Communication: Effective Listening

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change -5% -5%

DNK 1% -4%

< -15% 31% 30%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 48% 51%

15%…30% 0% 0%

30%…45% 0% 0%

45% > 22% 19%

Table 10 - Communication: Effective Listening


June 26, 2014

Figure 11 - Communication: Effective Use of Technology

Communication: Effective Use of Technology

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 5% 24%

DNK -11% -20%

< -15% 28% 12%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 34% 18%

15%…30% 23% 30%

30%…45% 11% 21%

45% > 5% 19%

Table 11 - Communication: Effective Use of Technology


June 26, 2014

Figure 12 - Communication: Consequential Objectives

Communication: Consequential Objectives

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 1% -6%

DNK -1% 1%

< -15% 29% 39%

-15%…0% 0% 0%

0%…15% 42% 36%

15%…30% 18% 17%

30%…45% 11% 9%

45% > 1% 0%

Table 12 - Communication: Consequential Objectives


June 26, 2014

Figure 13 - Digital Foundations

Digital Foundations

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 26% 26%

DNK -27% -32%

< -15% 0% 2%

-15%…0% 3% 3%

0%…15% 22% 16%

15%…30% 37% 38%

30%…45% 23% 33%

45% > 16% 8%

Table 13 - Digital Foundations


June 26, 2014

Figure 14 - Digital Applications

Digital Applications

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 5% 2%

DNK -16% -13%

< -15% 12% 13%

-15%…0% 13% 20%

0%…15% 52% 51%

15%…30% 14% 11%

30%…45% 6% 4%

45% > 3% 0%

Table 14 - Digital Applications


June 26, 2014

Figure 15 - Digital Consequential Issues

Digital Consequential Issues

F'13 S'14

N 101 90

Change 16% 14%

DNK -12% -20%

< -15% 3% 10%

-15%…0% 12% 9%

0%…15% 39% 38%

15%…30% 26% 26%

30%…45% 13% 10%

45% > 8% 8%

Table 15 - Digital Consequential Issues


June 26, 2014

Part IV - Conclusions

Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 Aggregate Assessment

In its most aggregate form, the results of the Assessment Test for INTD 184 – Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 are

depicted in the following graph and corresponding table. These show that the goals and objectives for EP

Foundations are being met by INTD 184. The remainder of this section provides supporting explanations.

The most obvious things to notice in the graph is that the average student score increased from 45% to 60% in

Fall 2013 and from 44% to 57% in Spring 2014. That is, the average number of correct answers increased by 15%

in Fall 2013 and by 13% in Spring 2014. Correspondingly, the average number of “I do not know the answer”

responses decreased by 14%, from 26% to 12%, in Fall 2013 and by 16% from 30% to 14% in Spring 2014.

This information is considered significant and is presented as evidence that on average students learned well in

the course both semesters. They did not learn perfectly, as the average number of incorrect answers did not

change significantly. This seems to indicate that by the time of the Post-Test many more students were

confident enough in their understanding of the questions and of the presented alternatives to attempt to

answer more questions, and that very often they did answer these questions correctly.

A closer look at the accompanying table supports this interpretation and provides more detail.

96% of the Fall 2013 students increased their score from the Pre-Test to the Post-Test

86% of the Spring 2014 students increased their score from the Pre-Test to the Post-Test

Nearly half, 48% of the Fall 2013 students increased their scores by 15% or more, which is significant

Half, 50% of the Spring 2014 students increased their scores by 15% or more; still significant

Few students decreased their scores significantly (by more than 15%), 0% in Fall 2013 and just 3% in Spring 2014

F'13 S’14

N 101 90

Change 15% 13%

DNK -14% -16%

< -15% 0% 3%

-15%…0% 4% 11%

0%…15% 49% 36%

15%…30% 44% 47%

30%…45% 3% 3%

45% > 1% 0%


June 26, 2014

Fall 2013

The experience of the fall semester and the assessment results obtained for Fall 2013 (see attached file

PrePostTest _AssessmentResults_20140117.pdf) prompted discussions among the faculty involved during

Intersession 2014. This lead to several modifications to the Syllabus and Calendars used in Spring 2014.

Included among these were the following:

Digital Applications “Warm-Up Assignments”

Since only a small percentage of students demonstrated the ability to effectively and appropriately

utilize Word Processing and Electronic Spreadsheet software in the Search Log and Data Analysis

assignments something needed to be done. The Search Log Assignment required students to use MS

Word to prepare and present the results of the Internet searching they had performed for the “Snapple

Fact” they were assigned in preparation for their initial “I Believe …” speaking experience. The Data

Analysis assignment required students to use MS Excel to import, format, analyze (using appropriate

functions and formulae) and then graph the results of an online survey they prepared related to their

Capstone Topic.

As a way of “benchmarking” the backgrounds and abilities of students early in the semester, “warm-up

assignments” were developed. The Search Log Assignment was evaluated and graded the same as it

was in Fall 2013, but the assigned grade was used just for determining the Mid-Term grade and was not

used to determine the Final Course Grade. An additional Excel Warm-Up Assignment was developed

that utilized a common set of data for all students and required them to demonstrate their

understanding and ability to format, analyze and depict specific information from that data. Here again,

this Excel Warm-Up Assignment was evaluated and graded but the assigned grade was used just for

determining the Mid-Term grade and was not used to determine the Final Course Grade.

Students were explicitly and repeatedly told that the grades for these “warm-up assignments” were not

permanent, but that follow-up assignments (involving the same understanding and abilities) were

coming and that those grades would persist. Students were encouraged to take advantage of scheduled

“Help Sessions” staffed by the Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) if they were unsure of “what to do”

or “how to do” these warm-up assignments so that they would be prepared for the real ones.

Additionally, the Graduate Teaching Assistants and Computing Sciences instructors were readily

available during scheduled office hours to meet individually or collectively with students.

Library Research Assignment

Similar in intent to the Digital Applications Warm-Up Assignments, the faculty librarians had each

student complete a short Research Assignment early in the semester. These were evaluated and graded

but the grades were not used to determine Final Course Grades.

“Golden Ticket”

In an attempt to formalize interaction between students and the faculty librarian embedded in their

section, each student was required to meet individually with the librarian to plan, review and discuss


June 26, 2014

their research into their Capstone Topic. Evidence of this meeting was a “Golden Ticket” that was then

passed on to the Communications instructor.

Additional In-class Speaking Activities

The Communication instructors augmented the three scheduled speaking activities (“I Believe …”,

Informative Presentation, and Persuasive Presentation) with additional short speaking activities that

required students to apply a specific technique in a particular situation.

Digital Concepts Quizzes

The Computing Sciences instructors gave three in-class quizzes during the latter part of the semester

based upon the foundational material available online. These were formally represented in the Grading

Scheme and were intended to better prepare students for the Final Exam.

Digital Portfolio Review

Each student was required to accumulate all of the artifacts pertaining to their Capstone Project and

create a Digital Portfolio; essentially a collection of MS Word, MS Excel and MS PowerPoint files. Each of

these artifacts had been developed as part of earlier assignments and thus had been evaluated for

content. During Exam Week these portfolios were evaluated and graded for completeness and for

appropriateness and these grades were formally represented in the Grading Scheme. In a real sense,

this Digital Portfolio is the “bookend” to the Digital Warm-Up Assignments, in that it provides students

with the final opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of and ability to use digital technology.

Exclusive and Extended Use of ANGEL

During Fall 2013 both ANGEL and a File Management System (provided by the Computing Science

instructors) were used as online resources. Because some students were confused by having two

distinct web sites, for Spring 2014 ANGEL was used exclusively and even more extensively.

Discussions of Digital Technology Issues Moved Earlier

The student-led discussions of Digital Technology (issues dealing with ethical, legal and socio-economic

concerns) were moved much earlier in the semester than was the case in Fall 2013. These speaking

activities tended to put some students more “at ease” as they spoke in a discussion format about the

topics, sometimes as discussion leaders and sometimes as discussion participants.


June 26, 2014

Spring 2014 - Assessment of articulated Student Learning Outcomes

As Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) were written for Spring 2014 and included in the common Syllabus for

INTD 184 that semester, this section will link each articulated SLO with corresponding course activities and

assignments and with related measureable outcomes.

“In this course, students are expected to understand and use digital technology to research thoroughly, gather

and manage appropriate materials, disseminate the results in appropriate oral form with supporting visuals,

and address relevant and important issues. Specifically, the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) of this course

are as follows:”

“SLO I: At the end of this course, students will be able to gather relevant information and evaluate this

information for appropriateness and credibility for use in an oral message.

Topics include: search strategies, logical operators, data representation, compression and encryption,

databases, audience analysis, demographics, psychographics, evaluating sources”

The first activity of the semester was the “I Believe …” Assignment that involved each student being given a

unique “Snapple Fact” and being asked to research the validity of that fact and then giving a short

presentation on the results of their investigation. This assignment was designed to integrate the course

material and the expertise of the course instructors. The Computing Sciences instructors introduced

advanced searching strategies and operators for Google and other online search engines and students were

required to explore their use. The Library faculty used part of their early semester class meetings to discuss

credibility and the evaluation of sources. The Communication instructors used this speaking activity

primarily as a means of “benchmarking.”

The “I Believe” Assignment served as a start to be followed by the semester-long Capstone Project. This

Project provided further opportunities for students to develop their abilities to gather, evaluate and

disseminate information. As part of the Capstone Project each student was required to meet with the

faculty librarian embedded in their section to plan, review and discuss their research. Evidence of this

meeting was a “Golden Ticket” that was then passed on to the Communications instructor. A short survey

was conducted and the results indicate that students found this to be a helpful and worthwhile activity (see

Golden Ticket Survey – Spring 2014 in attachments).

As assessment, see Figure 4 – Communication: Gathering, Evaluating Material and Audience Analysis and

Table 4 – Communication: Gathering, Evaluating Material and Audience Analysis. These results show that

correct answers increased by 21% during Spring 2014, offsetting a 14% decrease in “Do Not Know”

responses. Furthermore, 75% of students increased their correct answer scores by 15% or more.

“SLO II: At the end of this course, students will be able to manage information to construct an appropriate

message for dissemination in an oral and visual form.

Topics include: data formats (especially Comma Separated Values form), importing and exporting among

software tools, structuring data in word processors and spreadsheets, producing information using

available functionalities, basic speech structure and organizational patterns, general purposes,

constructing thesis statements, microstructure, transitions, claims/evidence/warrants, creating need-

based arguments, effective informative and persuasive strategies”


June 26, 2014

The Capstone Project had numerous activities, requirements and deadlines. Students were required to

prepare and then analyze the results of an online survey of their classmates. Their topic and these results

formed the basis of an Informative Presentation given mid-semester. This activity required each student to

make use of several software tools and deal with data representation differences. As assessment, see Figure

14 – Digital Applications and Table 14 – Digital Applications. Note that correct answers increased by 2%

during Spring 2014, offsetting a 13% decrease in “Do Not Know” responses, and that 66% of students

increased their correct answer scores.

A Persuasive Presentation of the topic was given as the culminating activity of the semester. Each

presentation was recorded, evaluated and graded. The Presentation Rubric used for Spring 2014 is included

among the attachments. In addition, students were required to view and prepare a “self-analysis” of each

presentation.

As assessment, see Figure 1 – Communication Objectives and Table 1 – Communication Objectives, and note

that correct answers increased by 9% during Spring 2014, offsetting a 10% decrease in “Do Not Know”


“SLO III: At the end of this course, students will be able to proficiently present messages to an audience using

appropriate visual support.

Topics include: delivery issues, using software tools such as word processing, spreadsheets and

presentation tools, hypertext, immediacy in conversation, discussion, and public speaking”

For assessment here, the categories of the Communication Objectives section are particularly relevant.

Figure 5 – Communication: Structure and Analysis and Table 5 – Communication: Structure and Analysis

show that correct answers increased by 23% during Spring 2014, offsetting a 23% decrease in “Do Not

Know” responses. Furthermore, 70% of students increased their correct answer scores by 15% or more.

Figure 11 – Communication: Effective Use of Technology and Table 11 – Effective Use of Technology show

that correct answers increased by 24% during Spring 2014, offsetting a 20% decrease in “Do Not Know”


“SLO IV: At the end of this course, students will be able to discuss relevant and important issues, which

include dealing with issues of privacy, security and managing communication, technological innovation and

current events that humans face in their daily lives.

Topics include: the fast pace of technological innovation, current events and discussion of what the future

may hold, communication apprehension, credibility, effective language use, listening skills, message

evaluation, evaluating self (recorded presentations)”

Early in the semester the faculty librarians conducted two class meetings and these, in part, provided an

opportunity for them to present materials and prompt discussions regarding copyright and related issues.

For the Digital Privacy and Security Discussion Assignment numerous issues and concerns pertaining to the

ever increasing application of Digital Technology were introduced in class and students were provided online

resources for them to use to investigate these. Students then selected a topic and along with a partner


June 26, 2014

were assigned the task of preparing and leading an in-class discussion of that topic. The Digital Privacy and

Security Discussion Rubric (see attachments) was developed and used to evaluate both the discussion

leaders and the class knowledge and participation.

As assessment, see Figure 15 – Digital Consequential Issues and Table 15 – Digital Consequential Issues.

Note that correct answers increased by 14% during Spring 2014, offsetting a 20% decrease in “Do Not Know”


“SLO V: At the end of this course, students will be able to describe and appreciate data representation

schemes, and the principles of hardware, software and network architectures.

Topics include: Hardware, software, data representation schemes, and networking. The level of coverage

of these can readily been seen in the online material available at

http://www.cs.scranton.edu/~ep/EP/ep.html.”

The Excel Warm-Up, Online Survey and Data Analysis assignments required students to deal first-hand with

different data representation formats and schemes. Some students were unprepared to deal with issues

related to this and for them, in particular, these assignments were worthwhile learning experiences.

Students were required to read the online material and then this material was reviewed during in-class

lectures, at which time students had opportunities to ask questions. In class quizzes were used to measure

student understanding.

As assessment, see Figure 13 – Digital Foundations and Table 13 – Digital Foundations. Note that correct

answers increased by 26% during Spring 2014, offsetting a 32% decrease in “Do Not Know” responses.

Furthermore, 79% of students increased their correct answer scores by 15% or more.

http://www.cs.scranton.edu/~ep/EP/ep.html


June 26, 2014

Attachments:

1. Eloquential Perfecta Foundation – Oral and Digital Proficiency , General Education Goals and Objectives,

Draft of May 4, 2013 (EPF_O&DP_LearningObjectives_20130504.docx)

2. INTD 184 Assessment Test (INTD184_AssessmentTest.docx)

3. INTD 184 Syllabus, Section 6 - Fall 2013 (Syllabus_INTD184_06_F2013.docx)

4. INTD 184 Calendar, Fall 2013 (Calendar_INTD184_F2013.docx)

5. INTD 184 – ST: EP Foundations, Fall 2013 Assessment (PrePostTest _AssessmentResults_20140117.pdf)

6. INTD 184 Syllabus, Section 6 – Spring 2014 (Syllabus_INTD184_06_S2014.docx)

7. INTD 184 Calendar, Sections 1-4 - Spring 2014 (Calendar_INTD184_S2014.docx)

8. INTD 184 Calendar, Sections 5-6 – Spring 2014,Concurrent (Calendar_INTD184_S2014_Concurrent.docx)

9. Digital Privacy and Security Discussion Rubric – Spring 2014 (DigitalPrivacySecurityDiscussionRubric.docx)

10. Presentation Rubric for Spring 2014 (Presentation Rubric for Spring 2014.docx)

11. Golden Ticket Survey – Spring 2014 (GoldenTicketSurvey_2014Spring.xlsx)

assessment report for intd 184 eloquentia perfecta ... · pdf fileassessment report for intd...

Documents