general education assessment handbook€¦ · assessment for general education (which follows this...

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK

Photo Credit: Dominique Waul, Freshman, NCC

Compiled by the General Education Handbook Subcommittee of the

College-Wide Assessment Committee

Spring 2013

Introduction The College-Wide Assessment Committee of the Academic Senate was charged with collecting exemplary pedagogical (teaching and assessment) practices related to the SUNY general education competencies of critical thinking, information management and basic written and oral communication. The following handbook represents the result of that endeavor. It is our hope that this document will provide faculty with guidance in the assessment process, while also allowing for the development of cohesive practices in Assessment. It is not only meant to offer suggestions for constructing and implementing the assessment of our courses themselves, but is meant to serve as a useful resource for faculty who are getting acclimated to our growing culture of assessment at Nassau Community College.

The General Education Handbook Subcommittee has also compiled a variety of classroom assignments and their corresponding assessments from our current faculty. By no means are the assignments in this handbook meant to represent all of the pedagogies our faculty members employ; instead, they are here to simply show a variety of approaches to classroom assessment. The documents are also included to highlight the diversity of faculty members’ approaches to assessment, not to imply or mandate specific philosophies of teaching and self-evaluation. Sharing ideas about pedagogy with colleagues is always interesting and sometimes inspiring—it is for this reason that we chose to include some examples of the work of our fellow colleagues.

From its earliest inception, the handbook was intended to function as an online fluid text. In the ongoing cooperative spirit that is Nassau Community College, and keeping with our mission to maintain a fluid text, we continue to invite submissions from departments and individuals. Please submit to [email protected].

The GEH Subcommittee, thanks all of the departments and individuals for contributing their best assessment practice matrices and narratives analyzed in concord with the SUNY Rubric Assessment for General Education (which follows this introduction). Your commitment to forwarding our mission to assist departments and faculty in the on-going process of self and student-evaluation at Nassau Community College in order to help improve student learning is to be commended. Thank you again for your generous support of our efforts to create a “Culture of Assessment” at Nassau Community College.

Warm regards,

Kim Ballerini, English Department, Chair GEH Subcommittee

Committee Members: Robert Genter, History/Pol Sci/Geography; Kerry Sikinger- Golde, Reading/BEP; Cheryl Novins, Reading/BEP; Joel Vessels, History/Pol Sci/Geography; Catherine Vanek, Grant in Progress

mailto:[email protected]

Guidelines for the Approval of State University General Education Requirement Courses1

For each State University General Education Requirement (SUNY-GER) category, the Task Force-defined learning outcomes are set out in plain text. Following each set of learning outcomes, guidelines for review and approval follow in italics. The guidelines take into account the intentions of Board Resolution 98-241, and the Provost’s Advisory Committee on General Education’s (PACGE’s) recommendations regarding the interpretation of the Task Force learning outcomes. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide transparency as to the expectations of the kinds of courses that may be approved in each of the SUNY-GER categories. They are not intended to constitute a logically exhaustive description of possible ways in which the learning outcomes can be met or evaluated. But it will generally be true that the further a given course is from obviously meeting the articulated guidelines, the less likely it may be approved for the category in question. It is anticipated that these guidelines will be subject to review, refinement and correction on an ongoing basis to account for shifts in disciplinary boundaries and feedback from campuses on a range of relevant issues.

I. KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL AREAS

1. MATHEMATICS 2

Students will demonstrate the ability to:

x interpret and draw inferences from mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables and schematics;

x represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically and verbally; x employ quantitative methods such as, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, or statistics to solve

problems; x estimate and check mathematical results for reasonableness; and x recognize the limits of mathematical and statistical methods.

If a student has passed either the Regents Math B exam or the Regents Algebra 2 and Trigonometry exam with a score of 85 or above, the campus may judge the student to have satisfied all the learning outcomes for this category.

1 The following unaltered excerpt was taken in its entirety from:

http://www.suny.edu/provost/generaleducation/GenED.cfm

2 Revision made 4/13/05, reflecting the content of student learning outcomes approved by State and National mathematical organizations. Revision made 7/9/10 to reflect new Regents exams.

2. NATURAL SCIENCES

Students will demonstrate:

x understanding of the methods scientists use to explore natural phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical analysis; and

x application of scientific data, concepts, and models in one of the natural (or physical) sciences.

For courses in the traditional natural science disciplines (e.g., chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) the inclusion of a laboratory component, though highly desirable, is not necessary for approval. For inter- or multi-disciplinary courses (e.g., environmental science, or the science portions of integrated curricula), or courses that fall outside the envelope of traditional natural science disciplines (e.g., psychology), submitted course information should demonstrate clearly:

x how they use all the methods listed in the first student learning outcome for the natural sciences;

x a rationale for which discipline(s) in the natural sciences they draw on for concepts and models;

x that the majority of the texts used fall clearly within the natural sciences.

3. SOCIAL SCIENCES


x understanding of the methods social scientists use to explore social phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical and interpretive analysis; and

x knowledge of major concepts, models and issues of at least one discipline in the social sciences.

More than some other broadly defined discipline areas, the boundaries of the social sciences may vary significantly from campus to campus. In order to be approved for the social science category, submitted information should demonstrate clearly that the course provides a substantial introduction to an acknowledged social science discipline.

For inter- or multi-disciplinary courses (e.g., women’s studies, or the social science portions of integrated curricula), or courses that otherwise fall outside the envelope of traditional social science disciplines, submitted course information should demonstrate clearly:

x how they teach understanding of social science methodologies;

x a rationale for which discipline(s) in the social sciences they draw on for concepts and

models; x that the majority of the texts used fall clearly within the social sciences.

4. AMERICAN HISTORY


x knowledge of a basic narrative of American history: political, economic, social, and cultural, including knowledge of unity and diversity in American society;

x knowledge of common institutions in American society and how they have affected different groups; and

x understanding of America's evolving relationship with the rest of the world.

To satisfy this SUNY-GER category, students must take either:

(i) a basic introduction to American History; or (ii) a more specialized course in American History (only if they scored 85 or above on the

NYS American History and Government Regents Exam). A. Kinds of courses that are approvable for category (i):

1. One half of the typical year-long survey of U.S. history. 2. Introductions to American Government that document significant attention to

historical context. 3. American History courses with a somewhat narrower chronological focus that

nevertheless provide enough historical context to cover a narrative equivalent to one semester of the U.S. History survey. Courses in 20th century U.S. history, e.g., have been approved when it has been documented that there is significant coverage of the 19th century context.

4. Special theme courses that have as an explicit component the coverage of the basic narrative equivalent to one semester of the U.S. History survey. Examples of such courses are UGC 211 American Pluralism (Buffalo), and GEA 2000 American History, Society, and the Arts Purchase). Both of these examples document the breadth of coverage of U.S. history by the use of a U.S. history textbook among the readings for the course.

B. Kinds of courses that are approvable for category (ii):

1. Virtually any American History course. 2. Courses on American society and culture that adopt an ostensibly historical perspective

and address in a significant way the 2nd and 3rd Task Force learning outcomes. These include, e.g., courses on the sociology of American institutions and/or minority groups. Courses that focus narrowly on literature, philosophy, the arts, vel sim., would not normally be deemed to provide the breadth of coverage of U.S. history intended by the Board Resolution.

5. WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Students will:

x demonstrate knowledge of the development of the distinctive features of the history, institutions, economy, society, culture, etc., of Western civilization; and

x relate the development of Western civilization to that of other regions of the world.

In addition to generic, eponymously titled, courses on the history of western civilization, courses that are more specialized—in either chronology or theme—may be approvable. Information submitted for such specialized courses would have to demonstrate

(i) a focus on an aspect of western civilization that is reasonably construed as foundationally important; and

(ii) relate that focus to the overall development of western civilization.

Thus, courses on specialized topics or periods—examples include: classical mythology, the Renaissance, the Bible, French civilization, the history of theater—are approvable so long as the materials submitted demonstrate that the primary focus of the course is related to larger cultural developments of western civilization. Courses that focus narrowly on particular authors or figures are generally not approvable, even if the authors in question should be very important ones. The operative idea is that the core of the course must be central to western civilization and that the treatment of that core must be placed in a broader cultural perspective, so that it could reasonably be said that students will gain an acquaintance with western civilization and not just a specialized knowledge of one narrowly defined topic.

6. OTHER WORLD CIVILIZATIONS


x knowledge of either a broad outline of world history, or x the distinctive features of the history, institutions, economy, society, culture, etc., of one

non-Western civilization.

The intention of this category is to provide a counterpoint to the European focus of the Western Civilization requirement. Thus, approvable courses in this category must be either entirely or preponderantly non-European and non-US in focus. In addition to courses on the civilizations of Asia or Africa, this would, for example, allow courses on the histories of Latin America, the Caribbean, and/or indigenous peoples of the Americas.

7. HUMANITIES


x knowledge of the conventions and methods of at least one of the humanities in addition to those encompassed by other knowledge areas required by the General Education program.

This category does not specify a particular humanities discipline or approach. In order to preserve the Task Force intention in splitting the original Humanities /Arts category in two, “performance” courses will generally not be approvable unless supported by documentation that they include a preponderance of scholarly humanistic study. Standard scholarly histories of the arts are approvable in both the Humanities and Arts categories. For inter- or multi-disciplinary courses whose scope does not obviously fall within the envelope of traditional humanistic disciplines (e.g., some communications offerings), submitted course information should demonstrate clearly:

x a rationale for which humanities discipline(s) they draw on for conventions and methods;

x that the majority of the texts are within humanities disciplines.

8. THE ARTS


x understanding of at least one principal form of artistic expression and the creative process inherent therein.

In order to be approved for the Arts category, offerings should engage the creative process directly as well as foster understanding of a principal form of artistic expression. Both performance-oriented and scholarly/historical offerings in the expressive arts are approvable for this category. Literary offerings are also approvable depending on campus-based criteria for distinguishing the Humanities and Arts categories. Courses imparting purely technical skills with no demonstration of aesthetic content are not approvable. For inter- or multi-disciplinary courses whose scope does not obviously fall within the envelope of traditional principal forms of artistic expression (e.g., courses on technical or practical aspects of design or electronic media) submitted course information should demonstrate clearly:

x which principal form(s) of artistic expression students will encounter; x the amount of time spent on each form; x how students will show understanding of the creative process(es) inherent in the

form(s).

9. FOREIGN LANGUAGE3


x basic proficiency in the understanding and use of a foreign language; and x knowledge of the distinctive features of culture(s) associated with the language they are

studying.

The first college semester, or above, of a foreign language constitutes an approvable course in this category. It is acknowledged that campuses have widely differing practices and available resources for the assessment of foreign language preparation. Previously acquired language competence may be determined by a standard measure selected or developed by the relevant faculty and should demonstrate the student’s readiness to enter the second college semester of foreign language study. In the case of local exams aligned with discontinued Regents Exams, this would mean passing Checkpoint B with a score of 85 or above. Use of local exams aligned with former Regents Exams for this purpose is at the discretion of the campus. Many campuses have, and are encouraged to have, language requirements that go beyond the minimum established by the Board resolution.

American Sign Language may be used to satisfy this category only by students in the following programs:

x programs leading to certification in elementary and secondary education; x programs leading to careers where there is likely to be significant contact with the

hearing-impaired.

10. BASIC COMMUNICATION

Students will:

x produce coherent texts within common college-level written forms; x demonstrate the ability to revise and improve such texts; x research a topic, develop an argument, and organize supporting details; x develop proficiency in oral discourse; and x evaluate an oral presentation according to established criteria.

Approvable courses for this category include

x writing-intensive courses that also include significant attention to speaking skills; x speaking-intensive courses that also include significant attention to writing skills.

3 Revision made 5/30/12 to reflect the development of local exams to replace discontinued Regents exams in

foreign languages.

Campuses proposing to cover the Basic Communication outcomes by diffusion (e.g., Writing Across the Curriculum programs) must demonstrate that they are taught and practiced in all the courses involved. This demonstration may be facilitated by describing the mechanisms of course or program organization for achieving the learning outcomes.

Remedial or ESL courses are not acceptable within this category. Nor should students place out of the Basic Communication requirement by high verbal SAT scores, on the grounds that all students need an awareness of and continual practice in all the specifically college-level knowledge and skills.

II. COMPETENCIES

The following two competencies should be infused throughout the General Education program:

1. CRITICAL THINKING (REASONING)

Students will:

x identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or others' work; and x develop well-reasoned arguments.

2. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Students will:

x perform the basic operations of personal computer use; x understand and use basic research techniques; and x locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sources.

The Critical Thinking and Information Management competencies are not necessarily associated with any one course, though either or both of them could be imparted in specific “Critical Thinking” or “Information Management” courses. In either case, campus submissions must demonstrate that the learning outcomes are accomplished in the overall undergraduate curriculum.

Office of the Provost System Administration

May 4, 2001; Amended April 13, 2005; Amended July 9, 2010

I. Departmental Contributions

Gen ED: Critical Thinking/Information Management

1. History (HPSGD): Critical Thinking/Information Management

2. English: Critical Thinking/Information Management; ADAR 2012

3. Reading/Basic Education: Critical Thinking; ADAR 2012

4. Nursing: Accreditation Commission Response; Critical Thinking

5. Psychology: Critical Thinking and Mastery of Research Methods in

Social Science; ADAR 2012 Excerpt

6. Math: Math 102 Matrix; Critical Thinking

II. Individual Contributions Best Practices

Information Management/ Critical Thinking

1. Professor David Pecan, English: English 101/102

General Best Practices

1. Professor Anne Cubeta, Hospitality Business: NTR195,

NTR 158

2. Rona Casciola, Marketing, Retailing & Fashion: Assessing

the Creative Student

3. Dr. Lisa J. Korman, Psychology: Psy 203

I 1. History Department

The Practice of Assessment in the Department of History, Political Science, and Geography

With the inauguration of the new three-year assessment cycle in the academic year 2010-2011, the History, Political Science, and Geography Department (HPSGD) has made its goal the synchronization of department and course-level assessment and hopefully a fuller harmonization of those department and course-level goals with the institutional goals of Nassau Community College (NCC). From the inception of programmatic and departmental assessment at NCC, the HPSGD has occasionally struggled with balancing the need to gather meaningful data with a principled consideration of the academic freedom of individual faculty members and a practical flexibility in addressing variant models of student learning. The Department’s current assessment strategy looks to turn that difficulty into an advantage. Taking the direction and theoretical grounding of our multi-disciplinary department and input from the broad range of experience of our diverse faculty, the Department Assessment Committee (DAC) has worked towards developing a workable and intelligible format for generating useful and useable assessment data.

The key to this strategy has been the embrace of the SUNY General Education Goals as the guiding force of all department-level assessment and reliance on our own Department mandated annual Inter-Rater Reliability Coordination Meeting (IRRCM) to harmonize particular faculty pedagogical strategies with generalized Department goals. To that end the Department has adopted a very straightforward articulation of both the Department goals, linked to the SUNY Gen Ed Requirements, and their sympathetic (if not simply symbiotic) relationship with the institutional goals and mission of Nassau Community College writ large. In summation, Department goals, Goal Measurement, Reflection of Institutional Goals and Mission follow here in an adaptation of an easily obtained OAPR worksheet:

I. Department Goals

In keeping with the stated mission and goals of America’s largest public university system, the goals of the History – Political Science – Geography Department at Nassau Community College are the State University of New York General Education Requirements. To wit: Courses designated as History are to fulfill the following requirements as they apply to course title and content: American History Students will demonstrate: Knowledge of a basic narrative of American history: political, economic, social, and cultural including knowledge of unity and diversity in American society; knowledge of common institutions in American society and how they have affected different groups; and understanding America’s evolving relationship with the rest of the world. Western Civilization Students will demonstrate: Knowledge of the development of the distinctive features of the history, institutions, economy, society, culture, etc. of Western civilization; and relate the development of Western civilization to that of other regions of the world. Other World Civilizations Students will demonstrate: Knowledge of either a broad outline of world history, or the distinctive features of the history, institutions, economy, society, culture, etc., of one non-western civilization. Courses designated as Political Science or Geography are to fulfill the following requirements as they apply to course title and content in accordance with the stated SUNY Gen Ed Requirements for Social Sciences: Students will demonstrate: An understanding of the methods social scientists use to explore social phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical and interpretive analysis; and knowledge of major concepts, models and issues of at least one discipline in the social sciences. In addition, the Department as a whole takes as educational goals the development of the following Competencies as significant components of successful education: Critical Thinking (Reasoning) Students will: Identify, analyze and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or others’ work, and develop well-reasoned arguments. Information Management

Students will: Perform the basic operations of personal computer use; understand and use basic research techniques; and locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sources. II. Goal Measurement Goal Measurement at the department level will be managed by way of aggregating data of course-level assessment into an over-arching report where said data can be viewed heuristically and holistically. Review and discussion of department goals and their implementation at the course-level by department teaching faculty will be addressed at the department’s annual Inter-Rater Reliability Colloquium. This is ongoing and continuous. III. Department goals reflecting and supporting College Mission and Institutional Goals In broad form the goals of the HPSGD both reflect and support the whole of the institutional mission of Nassau Community College in taking an distinctive role in developing a culture of educational and scholarly rigor that is sympathetic to the needs and requirements a diverse student population while introducing students to a broad spectrum of human experience through a variety teaching methods and classroom/course experiences. Specifically, the Department’s goals actively seek to address goals three, four, seven, eight and nine: Ȉ�To provide general education that teaches students to think critically and analytically about a body of knowledge conducive to lifelong learning; Ȉ�To maintain developmental programs which upgrade student skills for success in college level courses, and to provide special courses of study, which enhance general education; Ȉ�To create a multicultural environment, which fosters the synthesis of knowledge, aesthetic appreciation, and commitment to ethical and social values; Ȉ�To encourage faculty development with programs that promote scholarship and creativity, and to encourage the adoption of innovative teaching methods and technology to enhance student learning; Ȉ�To support and strengthen academic programs which best prepare students for transfer to senior institutions, and to provide career programs to prepare students for regional and global employment opportunities; Additionally, by way of its participation within the broader NCC community, the Department’s goals highlight the role the department plays in other Institutional goal areas: Ȉ�To create educational programs that respond to and satisfy diverse community needs;

Ȉ�To provide the support services necessary for students to realize their maximum potential; Ȉ�To provide administrative leadership which assures educational quality, furnishes adequate student support services, maintains effective budgeting and facilities management, and stimulates thoughtful planning for the future of the College; Ȉ� To enhance the economic and cultural vitality of the County by promoting an educational environment which responds to the changing needs of the community. IV. Alignment of Department and Course-level goals within the HPSGD Course-level goals are reflective of broader Department goals in that the knowledge goal of each course serves, by its design and direction, to serve the knowledge goal of the Department goals as outlined in the SUNY Gen Ed Requirements. More directly, as the general Departmental goals themselves point to the fostering and honing of particular critical and analytical skills for their fulfillment, the unspoken goals – addressed at the course and (specific) instructor level – of both the Department and courses at NCC designated as being offered through the Department are as follows: (I) To foster the diversity of information in the local body politic (understood in this context as current and former NCC students) by maximizing the uniqueness of content and readings at both the course and course section level (II) To foster the diversity of historical and social-science thinking skills and modes of analysis in the body politic by maximizing the diversity and uniqueness of modes of approach in relation to the learning goals and assessment methods in each course section.

In discussion of the “best practices” of the HPSGD, it is of critical importance here to recognize the core necessity of not only a variety of learning methods but of pedagogical ones in considering student-body diversity and pedagogical modes of approach in addressing the challenges inherent in pursuing these and other goals. It is worth noting that as the Department has worked to maintain the balance between service to the student, generation of usable assessment data, and respect of and for academic freedom within the classroom, it has drawn the praise of OAPR and at least one Faculty Reader of an previous year’s ADAR who noted that while the Department shoulders a “more laborious [assessment] process, the “payoff” has been the “preservation of their [Department faculty] individuality and an opportunity for each instructor to explore his or her own approach.”4

4 Review of Annual Departmental Assessment Report – Department of History – PoliSci – Geography 2010-2011, 1.

Indeed, the assessment process that the HPSGD has taken on is more labor intensive than is likely necessary but, in the end, the preservation of academic freedom is as important as the opportunity and flexibility it affords each instruct in

confronting what Dr. Stephen Chew – a pioneer in the study of assessment and student learning – calls the problem of “poor metacognition skills” among the collective student body.5

At present the timeline of the HPSGD’s current three-year assessment cycle is as follows:

Year 1 (2011-2012): Courses designated American History and Other World Civilizations

Year 2 (2012-2013): Courses designated Western Civilization and Social Sciences (Political Science and Geography)

Year 3 (2013-2014): Global Infused Competencies: Information Management, Critical Thinking, and Basic Communication (Oral and Written)

In Year 3 the opportunity to re-assess courses from Years 1 & 2 where modifications were suggested, presuming modification-offering instructor has subsequently taught the course and implemented detailed modifications.

Given that the OAPR guidelines for the DAP allow for addition and subtraction of courses from the overall plan, as well as modification to when a given course is assessed, a specific effort has been made to specifically fit individual courses where they best fit the Area-Specific General Education Learning Goals and reflect the Global Infused Learning Competencies. As a result, both Years 1 & 2 are most concerned with the specific surveys and similar courses that most fully fit the Area-Specific Learning Goals of American History, Western Civilization, Other World Civilization, and the Social Sciences. This is not to say that courses not marked for assessment in these years do not, or could not, fit this specific criteria; rather it is a concession to the realities of the pedagogical demands and mission(s) of NCC. Consequently, while more specialized and/or elective courses easily would fit in and be determinative of success in meeting specific learning goals, they have been marked as courses which might also (and even more completely in some instances) realize the Global Infused Learning Competencies, particularly Information Management and Critical Thinking. Also, a number of the courses in the HPSGD are cross-listed with other departments (e.g., His 110/AFR 143) where assessment data might be more effectively and dependably aggregated on a semester-by-semester basis. Finally, it should be noted that while most, if not all, of the specialized/elective courses offered by the Department

5 “Faculty Reader Summary Comments” from Review of Annual Departmental Assessment Report (ADAR): 2010-

2011 Cycle, October 24, 2011. By way of introduction to the work and concerns of Dr. Stephen Chew see, for

instance, James M. Lang, “Metacognition and Student Learning,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 17,

2012. Available online at:

http://chronicle.com/article/MetacognitionStudent/130327/?sid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en. These

concerns are further adumbrated in the report conclusion below.

http://chronicle.com/article/MetacognitionStudent/130327/?sid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en

are scheduled to be assessed in Year 3 of the assessment plan, actual collection of data will be done on an “as-offered-and-run” basis.

Lastly, at present the DAC, working in concert with the Department writ large, has designated His 102: Western Civilization II (and the Honors variant His 109: Roots of the Western World II) as the “SUNY General Education Global Infused Learning Competencies” course for the Department. As should be apparent from the above discussion, this is not to say that most, if not all, courses offered within the Department are not assessed fully for both its Area-Specific General Education Learning Goal as well as its relevance to the Global Infused Learning Competencies as seen in the following section which details the tools and measures used to assess student learning, what competencies are addressed, and by way of select examples from previous ADARs, how these are managed by faculty within the HPSGD.

Assessment Tools and Measurement – Select Examples of Assessment in the Wild

As typical practice in the HPSGD, Department Assessment includes the following points:

- The required SUNY Learning Goal(s) for the three areas of American History, Western Civilization, and Other World Civilizations with the resulting Outcome Behavior being the information-rich course specific expression of the Learning Goal.

- SUNY directed competency in Critical Thinking - SUNY directed competency in Information Management - Suggested Instructor and Programmatic Modifications

(It is to be understood that Instructor Modifications are those modifications that individual instructors will enact in the course of their particular course instruction; Programmatic Modifications are to be seen as suggestions made by discipline-specific experts for the positive evolution of the pedagogical experience Program wide. As they are, by nature, outside the direct influence of individual instructors, Suggested Programmatic Modifications are little more than suggestions and can not be acted upon at the individual course-level.)

A course is considered fully assessed when it has been both assessed with instructor modifications suggested and assessed with instructor modifications implemented. If there are no suggested instructor modifications, or if instructor modifications are dependent on broader programmatic or college-wide modifications/initiatives, at the time of initial assessment the course is to be considered fully assessed until such time as it comes up for re-assessment in the next three-year assessment cycle.

The specific measures used in assessing student learning and performance in each course are to be left to the individual instructor provided a brief description of said tool is provided. However, it is understood that they are to fit within the generic categories of:

- In-class or take-home essays - In-class or take-home short-answer questions - Research Papers - Objective Exams, i.e. Multiple-Choice and/or True or False - Oral Reports or Presentations - Groups Presentations or Projects - Other (specifically identified and explained on case-by-case basis)

The criteria used to assess levels of student learning are understood to be as follows:

In-class Essay Exam:

- students who fully mastered the material will produce an essay that is coherent and fully articulates a reasoned argument that addresses the essay question completely. It will also provide supporting material/examples relevant to their conclusion while considering potential alternative interpretations. Finally, any essay deemed to demonstrate full mastery of the subject will describe the broader significance or context of the issue at hand as it relates to either a discreet section of the course or the course as a whole.

- students who largely mastered the material will produce an essay that is coherent and addresses the essay question directly while providing supporting material/examples relevant to their conclusion. An essay deemed to demonstrate that a student has largely mastered the material may or may not provide the broader context of the issue at hand.

- students who partially mastered the material will produce an essay that is coherent and a thorough retelling of the “narrative” relevant to the essay question but may lack either supporting material/examples for their conclusion. Broader context is generally ignored

- students who failed to master the material will produce an essay that is lacking in all or most of the above standards of coherence, evidence, alternative conclusions, and context.

In-class Short Answer Exam:

- students who fully mastered the material will provide an identification answer to “short answer” terms that offers the who/what, when, where, and why said term is historically significant

- students who largely mastered the material will provide an identification answer to “short answer” terms that offers the who/what, when and where but generally lack the application of why said term is historically significant

- students who partially mastered the material will provide an identification answer to

“short answer” terms that offers some identification of the term at hand in some combination of the who/what, when and where but that remains incomplete

- students who failed to master the material are unable to provide any relevant information for assigned “short answer” terms

Research Paper:

- students who fully mastered the material will produce an essay that is coherent, generally free of overt grammatical errors and fully articulates a reasoned argument that addresses the topic completely. It will also provide supporting materials/examples relevant to their conclusion while considering potential alternative interpretations. Finally, any essay deemed to demonstrate full mastery of the subject will demonstrate a broader understanding of the general topic addressed specifically in the body of the essay by way of addressing prominent issues engaged by other secondary scholarly material. Evidence of the last two points will be demonstrated by a well-prepared bibliography of authoritative sources and appropriate citations in the body of the essay.

- students who largely mastered the material will produce an essay that is coherent, free of overt grammatical errors and fully articulates a reasoned argument that addresses the topic completely. It will also provide supporting materials/examples relevant to their conclusion. An essay deemed to demonstrate that a student has largely mastered the material may or may not directly engage with other secondary scholarly material.

- students who partially mastered the material will produce an essay that is coherent, free of overt grammatical errors and demonstrates a grasp of the historical “narrative” of issues involved in the topic. It may be lacking however, in any or all of the other areas of supporting materials/examples, alternative interpretations of events and evidence, and demonstration of a broad understanding of the general topic at hand.

- students who failed to master the material will be deemed to have fallen significantly short of stated standards in whole or in part.

Objective Exams – MCQ and T/F:

- students who fully mastered the material have correctly answered a broad range of objective questions demonstrating a competency with not only a traditional historical narrative and timeline but also the context of specifically highlighted events

- students who largely mastered the material have correctly answered a narrower range of objective questions while still demonstrating a competency with not only a traditional historical narrative and timeline but also the context of specifically highlighted events.

- students who partially mastered the material have correctly answered a range of objective questions demonstrating a competency with either a traditional historical narrative and timeline or the context of specifically highlighted events though seldom both.

- students who failed to master the material will be deemed to have fallen significantly

short of stated standards in whole or in part.

Oral Presentations:

- students who fully mastered the material will produce an oral presentation of pre-set length developed from a bibliography of a specified number of authoritative sources that demonstrates an understanding of all the issues involved in a/the specific topic. An oral presentation that demonstrates full mastery of relevant material will also generally provide supporting visual or short narrative materials to aid in the presentation of the student’s argument and reinforce the topic.

- students who largely mastered the material will produce an oral presentation of a pre-set length developed from a bibliography of a specified number of authoritative sources that demonstrates an understanding of most (though not all) of the issues involved in a/the specific topic. Generally, an oral presentation deemed to be of a level of “largely mastering” the material will also provide supporting visual or short narrative materials to aid in the presentation of the student’s argument and reinforce the topic.

- students who partially mastered the material will produce an oral presentation that addresses the “narrative” of a/the specific topic but is deficient in any or all of the other criteria required to demonstrate a complete or full mastery of the subject material


Group Projects:

- students who fully mastered the material will produce a group project (e.g., research paper or oral presentation) as determined by/with the course instructor developed from a bibliography of authoritative sources that demonstrates an understanding of all the issues involved in a/the specific topic. A group project that demonstrates full mastery of the material will also be easily separable into its constituent parts, i.e. the project work of all collaborators will be readily identifiable by way of individual research notes/drafts or other relevant material.

- students who largely mastered the material will produce a group project (e.g., research paper or oral presentation) as determined by/with the course instructor developed from a bibliography of authoritative sources that demonstrates an understanding of most of the issues involved in a/the specific topic. A group project that largely demonstrates mastery of subject material must also be easily separable into its constituent parts, i.e. the project work of all collaborators will be readily identifiable by way of individual research notes/drafts or other relevant material.

- students who partially mastered the material will produce a group project (e.g.. research paper or oral presentation) that addresses the “narrative” of a/the specific topic but is deficient in any or all of the other criteria required to demonstrate a complete or full mastery of the subject material.


Controlled Aggregate of Selected Tools evaluated in concert to form a total quantity: This assessment tool is a balanced evaluation of several individual tools designed to excavate both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of student learning outcomes and goals.

- students who are determined to have fully mastered the stated learning and outcomes goals will have demonstrated full mastery of required knowledge and discipline specific techniques by way of all or most of the selected individual assessment tools.

- students who are determined to have largely mastered the stated learning and outcome goals will have demonstrated near-full mastery of required knowledge and discipline specific techniques by way of all or most of the selected individual assessment tools.

- students who are determined to have partially mastered the stated learning and outcome goals will have demonstrated partial mastery of the required knowledge and discipline specific techniques by way of all or most of the selected individual assessment tools.

- students who are determined to have failed to master the material will be deemed to have fallen significantly short of the stated standards in whole or in significant part. Note: Please be sure to list the individual assessment tools (e.g.: a combination of essay exam, research essay, objective exam, etc.)

Other:

By definition this should be left to individual instructors as it comes up and “criteria” would be developed by them and as needed.

**The Department’s four levels of mastery (fully mastered, largely mastered, partially mastered, and failed to master) should be seen as the equivalent of the SUNY-GEAR performance levels of Exceeding, Meeting, Approaching, and Not Meeting respectively.

Assessment of student performance in regards to the SUNY mandated competencies of Critical Thinking (Reasoning) and Information Management will be evaluated on the basis of the SUNY definitions of said competencies:

Critical Thinking (Reasoning)

Students will:

-identify, analyze and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’

work and

-develop well-reasoned arguments

Information Management

Students will:

-perform the basic operations of personal computer use;

-understand and use basic research techniques; and locate, evaluate and synthesize

information from a variety of sources

Following you will find examples of how the individuated faculty assessment of sections has been used in the Department to create useful and usable data. The two included are for separate sections of His 103 and His 104, the two sections of American History. Note how the instructors have made use of various assignments within the teaching framework to address each specific learning outcome and global competency.

COURSE-LEVEL ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Department History Course No. and Title HIS 103: U.S. History, Part I Date May 2011

LEARNING GOALS In general terms, what faculty expects students to learn in a particular course. (NOTE: Learning Goals MAY be measurable, but they aren’t required to be.)

LEARNING OUTCOMES Specifically, what students will be able to DO that will demonstrate that the related Learning Goal has been achieved. (NOTE: Learning Outcomes MUST be observable AND measurable student behaviors.)

MEASUREMENT Measurement design (including measures, performance criteria, rubrics, ratings, etc.) that will be used to demonstrate and differentiate student performance for each learning outcome.

EVALUATION Analysis of assessment data and interpretation of results regarding how well students are performing relative to specified Learning Outcomes.

MODIFICATIONS Changes in curriculum, course content, or pedagogy that are clearly related to the results of outcomes assessment and that have potential to improve learning outcomes.


knowledge of a basic narrative of American history: political, economic, social, and cultural including knowledge of unity and diversity in American society; knowledge of common institutions in American society and how they have affected different groups; and understanding of America's evolving relationship with the rest of the world.

1) Historical Knowledge: Students will understand the broad spectrum of American life through a survey of American social, cultural and political

events, including such topics as the rise of colonial America; the American Revolution; the early national period of Washington,

Adams, and Jefferson; the westward movement; and the antislavery movement which climaxes with the Civil War.

2) Critical Thinking: Students will identify, analyze and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or others' work, and develop well-reasoned arguments.

3) Information Management: Students will perform the basic operations of personal computer use; understand and use basic research techniques; and locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sources.

1) Reading Quizzes: Multiple-choice quizzes are based on assigned readings from the textbook. Students are required to demonstrate basic historical knowledge of the information presented.

2) Exams: Exams require students to write essays about a variety of topics (Puritanism, the Great Awakening, the American Revolution, the Federalist era, slavery, the Civil War, etc.). Students must demonstrate broad historical knowledge of all topics and analyze historical arguments about each.

3) Papers: Students are required to write 3 short papers based upon their reading and understanding of primary documents.

Analysis: one section, 33 students

1) Historical Knowledge (Reading Quizzes):

Exceeding: 8

Meeting: 12

Approaching: 12

Not Meeting: 1

2) Critical Thinking (Exams):

Exceeding: 6

Meeting: 18

Approaching: 7

Not Meeting: 2

3) Information Management (Papers):

Exceeding: 8

Meeting: 14

Approaching: 10

Changes in curriculum and course content:

1) Better access to technology in the classroom (more computers, better Internet access, better A/V equipment) would help translate course material to students. Our classrooms at NCC are stuck in the 1950s.

2) Fewer students in the classroom would allow for more personal instruction for those students struggling with the material.

These changes will hopefully increase student test scores since the goal is to help students gain a deeper understanding of historical transformations.

Not Meeting: 1

Interpretation: Overall the students were successful in both their papers and in their essay exams, demonstrating their grasp of basic critical thinking skills and information management. Of course, such an interpretation, despite the seemingly objective findings generated from this sketchy quantitative data, is anecdotal at best. The study and learning of history is not reducible to quantitative numbers like the ones generated in this assessment matrix. So much of what occurs in the classroom is specific to that particular class itself – what students bring to the classroom, what concerns and interests they have, and what the classroom dynamic is like. Flexibility and diversity in the classroom are key, particularly for history courses.

COURSE-LEVEL ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Department History Course No. and Title His 104: U.S. History, Part II Date May 2011







Knowledge of a basic narrative of American history: political, economic, social, and cultural including knowledge of unity and diversity in American society; knowledge of common institutions in American society and how they have affected different groups; and understanding of America's evolving relationship with the rest of the world.

1) Historical Knowledge: After completing this course, students will understand the growth of industrial America, the Progressive Era, the expansion of American overseas, the Great Depression, and the rise of modern America, and students will understand the impact recent events have had on the creation of modern American society.

2) Critical Thinking: Students will identify, analyze and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or others' work, and develop well-reasoned arguments.

3) Information Management: Students will perform the basic operations of personal computer use; understand and use basic research techniques; and locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sources.

1) Reading Quizzes: Multiple-choice quizzes are based on assigned readings from the textbook. Students are required to demonstrate basic historical knowledge of the information presented.

2) Exams: Exams require students to write essays about a variety of topics (Reconstruction, Progressivism, the Great Depression, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, conservativism, etc.). Students must demonstrate broad historical knowledge of all topics and analyze historical arguments about each.

3) Papers: Students are required to write 3 short papers based upon their reading and understanding of primary documents.

Analysis: 4 sections, 131 students

1) Historical Knowledge (Reading Quizzes):

Exceeding: 33

Meeting: 67

Approaching: 24

Not Meeting: 7

2) Critical Thinking (Exams):

Exceeding: 30

Meeting: 60

Approaching: 26

Not Meeting: 15

3) Information Management (Papers):

Exceeding: 30

Meeting: 69

Approaching: 24

Changes in curriculum and course content:

1) Better access to technology in the classroom (more computers, better Internet access, better A/V equipment) would help translate course material to students. Our classrooms at NCC are stuck in the 1950s.

2) Fewer students in the classroom would allow for more personal instruction for those students struggling with the material.

These changes will hopefully increase student test scores since the goal is to help students gain a deeper understanding of historical transformations.

Not Meeting: 8

Interpretation: Overall the students were successful in both their papers and in their essay exams, demonstrating their grasp of basic critical thinking skills and information management. Of course, such an interpretation, despite the seemingly objective findings generated from this sketchy quantitative data, is anecdotal at best. The study and learning of history is not reducible to quantitative numbers like the ones generated in this assessment matrix. So much of what occurs in the classroom is specific to that particular class itself – what students bring to the classroom, what concerns and interests they have, and what the classroom dynamic is like. Flexibility and diversity in the classroom are key, particularly for history courses.

Conclusion

As hopefully has become apparent, the HPSGD is fully committed to developing and maintaining a culture of assessment and the gathering of meaningful data that will aid in advancing the goal of student success. Indeed, in the few years since the Department has been more expressly harmonizing its goals with the SUNY Gen Ed Requirements and Global Competencies initiatives, encouragement of individual faculty members has been frequent with the greater percentage of students in all courses either meeting or exceeding performance expectations of said course. Likely this is the result of greater articulation of course goals to students themselves and also a clarification of the task at hand for faculty. Still, the focus should be on “closing-the-loop” activities wherein the assessment that is done at the course level should be demonstrably seen to influence action not only at the level of individual Department or Program but Institutionally as well. Undue stress on course-level assessment serves only to atomize individual faculty members, reducing the common mission of the Department and College to a particularized demand placed on their shoulders alone. By way of stressing Department activity such as the IRRCM where individual ideas and concerns are considered and become communal departmental strategies and policies, the HPSGD is attempting to alleviate this all-too-common aspect of the assessment project. As one might have noted from the two examples of “assessment at work” above, the “Suggested Course Level Modifications” often bear the stamp of individual instructors; still one common theme in many of the suggested Modifications is a shared frustration that many of our students are not sufficiently prepared for college-level work. While some of the suggested “Programmatic Modifications” sometimes reflect that frustration, they too remain nonetheless the fruit of earnest concern for our students and their future. Ultimately, the assessment process here at NCC must bring together not only the data of departments and programs but also the successful strategies of individual faculty, no matter the discipline or school, in surmounting the obstacles we all often face. This sometimes begins with a clarification of goals – for both faculty and student – and an articulation of expectations. It is this clarification and articulation that we in the HPSGD count as the foundation of “best practices.”

2. ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

Annual Departmental Assessment Report - English: 2011-2012 Cycle

May 2012

Timeline

2012-2013: Assessment of Critical Thinking in courses across our offerings: 101, 102, 203, 204,

205, 231, 251, 314. Courses were selected from those with large enrollment. We anticipate

differences between Critical Thinking skills in 101, 102, and the 200/300 level classes. Critical

thinking is a department-level goal.

2013-2014: Assessment of course area specific goals:

Western Civilization: Eng 203, 204, 205, 206. Cultural Literacy is a department-level goal.

The Arts: Eng 313,316, 317, 318. Aesthetic Literacy is a department-level goal.

2014-2015: Focus on re-assessment in an effort to “Close the Loop.”

Writing or Textual Literacy?

Goals

This year, the English Department Assessment Committee began its new three-year plan of

assessment, which will focus on the integrative stage of assessment. The three initiatives that we

undertook this year are part of an effort to “Close the Loop,” as suggested by the Office of

Assessment and Program Review, and in response to Middle States Requirements. Each of these

studies evaluates how the English Department has modified its teaching in response to the results

of our previous studies and evaluates the success of these modifications. The three areas that we

assessed this year are:

1. Student Revision Skills (subsequent to the 2006 Basic Communications Assessment

and 2008 department colloquium on revision)

2. Critical Thinking (subsequent to 2008 Critical Thinking Assessment)

3. Information Management (subsequent to 2008 Information Management Assessment)

Student Revision Skills (Spring 2011)

The English Department, in Spring 2011, conducted a follow-up study designed to assess the

impact of modifications instituted following the original 2006 study focused upon “The ability to

revise and improve texts”— using the same protocols as employed in the original study in order

to assure valid comparisons. As previously, English 101 and 102 sections were sampled. In this

year’s assessment, however, English 001 was added, since revision has become an emphasized

goal.

Modifications since last assessment

(1) Several symposia devoted to discussions of the 2006 study and to best practices/strategies

for integrating revision as objective into the composition sequence

(2) Modification of English 001, 101, 102 learning goals/descriptions to include the revision

of texts as required goal—done through departmental discussion and subsequent faculty

vote.

Evaluation Procedures

The evaluative process was conducted by the assessment committee—each member committing

five hours reading and scoring student responses (each containing a draft and revision). The

scoring system used had the following measures: “Not Meeting” (1); “Approaching” (2);

“Meeting” (3); “Exceeding” (4).

Criteria

Exceeding: Writer demonstrates an ability to revise by substantially altering and reorganizing content. The mechanics of the final revision are nearly flawless.

Meeting: The writer presents an ability to refine, sharpen, and expand the content of the essay. The mechanics are mostly accurate.

Approaching: Writer demonstrates the lack of ability to substantially revise. Mechanics have either not improved significantly or appear to be the only focus of the revision.

Not Meeting: Writer demonstrates a lack of ability to revise at the level of content or structure. Changes either do not improve these features or are focused almost solely on mechanics.

Results

Results of the study are attached. More in-depth analysis will follow in next year’s ADAR, but

our preliminary analysis indicates:

(1) Progress towards the department’s target, “Meeting Expectations,” has advanced an

impressive 19.42% from 2.06 (low “Approaching Expectations” [2006 study]) to 2.46

(high “Approaching Expectations” 2011 study]) for English 102

(2) Progress towards the department’s target, “Meeting Expectations,” has advanced a

significant 9.48% from 2.11 (low “Approaching Expectations” [2006 study]) to 2.31 (mid

“Approaching Expectations” [2011 study]) for English 101.

(3) English 001 is a developmental course, and students enter with skills significantly below

standards for college-level work. When we apply the same expectations of skill level to

those students that we also use for credit-bearing courses, our target is that they will

approach those expectations. Therefore, it is noteworthy that the department’s target

has been met: 2.26; for rubric 2 (“Writer has foregrounded relevant material and put

proper emphasis on supporting material”), student learning has exceeded the

department’s target: 2.9 (“Meeting Expectations”)—eloquent testimony to the Writing

Coordinator and Placement faculty’s priority emphasis upon revision and attendant

portfolio.

During the 2012-2013 academic year, the department will conduct an in-depth analysis and

determine additional modifications that will promote advancement towards its targets for

revision as a learning goal.

COURSE: 001 OUTCOME: The ability to revise and improve texts RUBRIC ELEMENTS

NOT MEETING

APPROACHING MEETING EXCEEDING

1. Presentation of evidence has been improved, and content refined.

2.5

Spring 2011

\

Spring 2006

2. Writer has foregrounded relevant material, and put proper emphases on supporting material.

2.9

Spring

2011

\

Spring 2006

3. Improved transitions make the focus more evident.

2.0

Spring 2011

\

Spring 2006

4. Introduction has been improved, clarified.

2.1

Spring 2011

\

Spring 2006

5. Conclusion has been improved, clarified.

2.1

Spring 2011

Spring

\ 2006

6. Individual sentences have been rewritten, improved.

1.98

Spring 2011

\

Spring 2006

7. Mechanics improved: grammar, punctuation, spelling, documentation.

2.2

Spring 2011

\

Spring 2006

Overall: 2.26 (Approaching) Courses sampled: 3 Student responses sampled: 34


NOT MEETING



2.43

Spring 2011

2.12

Spring 2006


2.35

Spring

2011

2.18

Spring 2006


2.24

Spring 2011

2.11

Spring 2006


2.19

Spring 2011

1.98

Spring 2006

5. Conclusion has been improved,

2.29

Spring 2011

clarified.

1.96

Spring 2006


2.34

Spring 2011

2.3

Spring 2006


2.34

Spring 2011

2.15

Spring 2006

2011 Overall: 2.31 (Approaching)

2006 Overall: 2.11 (Approaching) 2011 Courses sampled: 11; 2011 Student responses sampled: 145 2011 Progress to Expectation (“Meeting”), using 2006 overall as benchmark: +9.48%


NOT MEETING



2.6

Spring 2011

2.04

Spring 2006


2.6

Spring

2011

2.1

Spring 2006


2.55

Spring 2011

2.04

Spring 2006


2.46

Spring 2011

1.94

Spring 2006

5. Conclusion has been improved,

2.43

Spring 2011

clarified.

1.854

Spring 2006


2.32

Spring 2011

2.3

Spring 2006


2.27

Spring 2011

2.17

Spring 2006

2011 Overall: 2.46 (Approaching)

2006 Overall 2.06 (Approaching) 2011 Courses sampled: 8; 2011 Student responses sampled: 100 2011 Progress to Expectation (“Meeting”), using 2006 overall as benchmark: +19.42%

GEN ED GLOBAL COMPETENCIES MATRIX BASIC WRITTEN COMMUNICATION

Department Course No. and Title Date

LEARNING GOALS What faculty expects students to learn in a particular course.

LEARNING OUTCOMES What students will be able to do that will demonstrate that the related Learning Goal has been achieved.


QUANTITATIVE DATA Quantitative data for department level learning outcomes/goals assessed

1. Students will develop college level writing skills within the context of their coursework.

1. Produce coherent texts within common college level forms.

2. Revise and improve such texts.

*FOR EACH LEARNING OUTCOME:

1. Identify & Describe Measure(s).

_____ Paper / Report

_____ Exam: Short Answer

_____ Exam: Essay

_____ Exam: Multiple Choice

_____ Presentation

_____ Assignment

_____ Field / Lab Project

_____ Other (specify)

Number of students:

Number of sections:

Number of full-time and adjunct faculty:

Number of students who are Exceeding: Meeting: Not meeting: expectations for academic performance.

*

Description(s):

Exceeding: Writer demonstrates an ability to revise by substantially altering and reorganizing content. The mechanics of the final revision are nearly flawless.

Meeting: The writer presents an ability to refine, sharpen, and expand the content of the essay. The mechanics are mostly accurate.

Approaching: Writer demonstrates the lack of ability to substantially revise. Mechanics have either not improved significantly or appear to be the only focus of the revision.

Not Meeting: Writer demonstrates a lack of ability to revise at the level of content or structure. Changes either do not improve these features or are focused almost solely on mechanics.

Critical Thinking (Spring 2012)

In Spring 2012, we conducted our reassessment of Critical Thinking. This study represents a

cross-section of 26 courses, representing a diverse class and time distribution. The committee

created an evaluation matrix and drafted explicit instructions asking instructors to evaluate only

students’ critical thinking abilities.

The overall learning goal of Information Management Reassessment is to measure student ability

to:

x Identify, analyze, and evaluate elements of arguments as they occur in their own and in

others’ writing.

x Develop well-reasoned, thesis driven arguments.



Instructors were asked to evaluate one thesis-driven, documented essay or argument for each

student in the course. They were then instructed to complete a Critical Thinking matrix for each

student to evaluate student performance relative to the stated goal. The committee also asked

instructors to suggest modification to the assignment for the future. The committee plans to share

these suggested modifications with the department, so the faculty may decide on future

requirements.

Criteria

Exceeding: Writer offers a clear thesis that is supported by a well-structured and convincing argument.

Evidence is specific and the essay offers in-depth analysis of the issues addressed.

Meeting: The essay is built around a thesis that the writer addresses consistently. Most of the evidence is pertinent and the essay presents consistency throughout.

Approaching: The essay is built around some sense of argument, although the connections between arguments are not always clear. Writer exhibits a basic understanding of how evidence is used.

Not Meeting: The essay offers no clear thesis or argument. The connections between ideas are not fully

established. It is unclear how the evidence presented relates to the essay’s topic.

GEN ED GLOBAL COMPETENCIES MATRIX CRITICAL THINKING


LEARNING GOALS

What faculty expects students to learn in a particular course.




1. Students will develop critical thinking skills through their exposure to the methods

of evidence and reasoning utilized to advance understanding in a subject field.

1. Identify, analyze and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or other’s work, as demonstrated by their ability to decide whether the explicit or implicit premises of a (subject specific) argument contain enough true, relevant information to justify acceptance of its conclusion; to explain why the premises do or do not support a conclusion; to understand the methods scientists use as a systematic application of critical thinking; to exercise other specified abilities with respect to the analysis of arguments important to the applications of the subject field.

2. Develop well-reasoned arguments, as demonstrated by their ability to present a claim and support it with evidence; to anticipate and respond to criticisms and counter-arguments; to exercise other specified abilities with respect to the development of well-reasoned arguments important to the





_____ Exam: Essay


_____ Presentation

_____ Assignment



Number of students:

Number of sections:



*

applications of the subject field. Description(s):

Exceeding: Writer offers a clear thesis that is supported by a well-structured and convincing argument. Evidence is specific and the essay offers in-depth analysis of the issues addressed.

Meeting: The essay is built around a thesis that the writer addresses consistently. Most of the evidence is pertinent and the essay presents consistency throughout.

Approaching: The essay is built around some sense of argument, although the connections between arguments are not always clear. Writer exhibits a basic understanding of how evidence is used.

Not Meeting: The essay offers no clear thesis or argument. The connections between ideas are not fully established. It is unclear how the evidence presented relates to the essay’s topic.

Information Management (Conducted Spring 2011/Analysis completed Spring 2012)



Criteria

Exceeding: Student presents a variety of information from a diverse set of sources that show a profound understanding of the topic and the context surrounds it. The research expends the reader’s concept of the topic.

Meeting: Student uses a variety of sources that clearly support the essay’s thesis. The sources are correctly documented and in-depth.

Approaching: Student presents outside research about the essay’s topic, but its connection to the thesis is not clear. While the student attempts to accurately document outside sources, formatting and other logistical errors are evident.

Not Meeting: Student presents outside research that is not relevant to the essay’s topic or no research at all. Little understanding of correct documentation and attribution is apparent.

GEN ED GLOBAL COMPETENCIES MATRIX INFORMATION MANAGEMENT


LEARNING GOALS What faculty expects students to learn in a particular course.




1. Students will demonstrate competency in the methods of information

literacy/management through their exposure to information resources and research techniques in applications relevant to the subject field.

1. Perform the basic operations of personal computer use, such as word processing,

presentations, spreadsheets, email, the Internet, CD-ROMs, online databases, etc.

2. Understand and use basic research techniques, including the ability to: identify a research topic or other information need, identify potential sources of information in a variety of formats, construct effective search strategies for the needed information (e.g., identifying key words, concepts, synonyms, related terms, etc.).

3. Locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sources, including the ability to implement a search strategy from print and non-print sources; to interpret bibliographic citations; to determine the validity, reliability, authority, relevance and/or usefulness of gathered information; to create a product that demonstrates organization and integration of gathered information; to exercise discrimination in the ethical use of information and adhere to the standards of plagiarism.





_____ Exam: Essay


_____ Presentation

_____ Assignment



Description(s):

Exceeding: Student presents a variety of information from a diverse set of sources that show a profound understanding of the topic and the context surrounds it. The research expends the reader’s concept of the topic.

Meeting: Student uses a variety of sources that clearly support the essay’s thesis. The sources are correctly documented and in-depth.

Approaching: Student presents

Number of students:

Number of sections:



*

outside research about the essay’s topic, but its connection to the thesis is not clear. While the student attempts to accurately document outside sources, formatting and other logistical errors are evident.

Not Meeting: Student presents outside research that is not relevant to the essay’s topic or no research at all. Little understanding of correct documentation and attribution is apparent.

Outlook

As part of the College’s new three-year GenEd assessment plan, the English Department has begun its

reassessment of its classes’ learning outcomes in an effort to “Close the Loop.” We have begun to enter

the relevant data for our current three-year plan into the College’s new TaskStream system. We have

prepared a Mission Statement which we will soon post, and plan to refine our parameters in the early

part of the fall semester, and enter all necessary data into TaskStream and begin to use the software as

our primary tool of departmental assessment. The committee is particularly interested in looking at the

effect of class size on student learning, and looking at the role of developmental education, particularly

how it affects our students’ ability to succeed as they progress to higher level courses. We also hope that

the Department will receive sufficient support from the College to complete the assessment initiatives

that it has already begun.

3. READING/BASIC EDUCATION

RDG 101 – Effective College Reading

Course Group

Course Number

Cycle & Year

Academic Year

2011-2012

Academic Year

2012-2013

Academic Year

2013-2014

1 RDG 101 Cycle-2

Year-1 IR IR E E I-2 P I-2 P

The goal selected for assessment for Reading 101 (Effective College Reading) states “Students will be able to recognize the use of sarcasm and satire and determine the author’s purpose and point of view; students will be able to interpret political cartoons and respond to them.” This goal was selected because it has been evident to 101 teachers that our students struggle with the advanced comprehension and thinking required for understanding satire; in fact, in fall 2010, a survey of 101 instructors revealed that 60% of our students showed a satisfactory level of proficiency in understanding and responding to satire. Following that survey, instructors began focusing on teaching particular elements of satire to their classes and implemented pre- and post-testing measures to more specifically evaluate students’ strengths and weaknesses regarding their understanding of satirical works. The results of these measures showed that the specific teaching of the elements of satire improved our students’ understanding of the genre as a whole. We have selected this goal for continued assessment to further increase our students’ proficiency in comprehending satirical works.

In the fall 2011 semester, all Reading 101 instructors were required to complete the following tasks:

x provide numerical grades detailing students’ success in understanding satire x provide anecdotal feedback indicating which methods of teaching satire were most beneficial to

the students as well as where weaknesses still remain.

By giving instructors these tasks, we allowed them to provide instruction designed to meet our goals within the strengths of their own teaching styles. Collecting numerical grades provided concrete data of our students’ growth, while the anecdotal information prompted teachers to reflect on and evaluate their methodologies in order to determine what changes they would need to make to their instruction for the spring semester.

For the spring 2012 semester, instructors were asked to once again provide numerical data detailing their students’ performances on tasks involving satirical works, provide anecdotal feedback explaining any changes made to their methods of teaching satire based on their experience in the fall and any differences they saw in their students’ understanding of satire based on those changes. These evaluations allow us to continue to identify and implement modifications to our instruction that will improve learning outcomes. They also enable us to reassess the extent to which the measures we have already taken to effect this improvement have been successful.

As stated previously, in the fall of 2011, instructors used tasks that worked with their teaching styles in order to assess students’ understanding of satire. Some had students create satirical compositions or cartoons using the satirical techniques, others asked students to analyze satirical compositions or cartoons for the different elements of satire used. Of the 591 students enrolled in the class, 531 completed the task. Analysis of numerical data collected from each instructor shows the following:

FALL 2011 Score out of 100 points

90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 Below 60

Percentage of Students

45

22

16

8

9

There was a distinct improvement in our students’ proficiency in understanding satirical texts during the fall semester. To compare, our data from fall 2010 showed that only 60% of our students had a satisfactory level of proficiency when working with satire. The data from fall 2011 shows that 67% of ours students scored above a satisfactory level and 83% scored at or above a satisfactory level. The anecdotal information collected from instructors for fall 2011 provided the following information regarding the most beneficial methods of teaching satire:

x Practicing topical analysis: Learning about a topic realistically and then analyzing a satirical

piece dealing with the same topic. x Using video/visual satires x Selecting texts carefully to ensure that students’ had prior knowledge on the topic being satirized x Using cooperative learning so students could collaborate and use collective knowledge x Having students create their own satires x Modeling examples of satire x Having students “look-out” for satire in the real world

The weaknesses teachers continued to see in their students’ understanding of satire generally related to the following issues:

x Limited schema or “cultural literacy” (this was the most reported weakness observed) x Inability to discern nuances of language x Limited vocabulary

Changes instructors planned to make to their instruction for the spring 2012 semester included:

x Introducing/teaching satire earlier and providing more consistent exposure to the genre

throughout the semester x Providing more exposure to different forms of satire, especially visual forms x Implementing more metacognitive activities; having students explain their own satirical creations x Providing more examples of specific satirical techniques

Our spring 2012 data show continued improvement in our students’ understanding of satire. Once again, teachers used methods of assessment that best suited their teaching styles and classroom methodology. Of the 334 students listed as enrolled in their classes, 228 completed the task. Analysis of the numerical data from each instructor shows the following:

SPRING 2012

Score out of 100 points

90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 Below 60

Percentage of Students

48

25

13

6

8

These data show continued improvement of our students’ proficiency in understanding satire. 73% of the students scored above a satisfactory level, as compared to 67% for the fall, and 86% scored at or above the satisfactory level. In addition to this numerical data, instructors were again asked to provide anecdotal information, this time explaining the changes they made to their instruction and how those changes affected their students’ understanding of satire. The changes instructors made included the following:

x Using more video examples of satire x Devoting more time to the teaching of satire x Providing more examples of satire

x Providing more topical instruction: a “real life” issue was discussed followed by a satirical

presentation/work on the same topic x Providing a variety of examples of satire on one topic x Acknowledging satire and sarcasm in works that are not specifically categorized as “satire”

more consistently

While most instructors saw changes in their students’ ability to recognize satire and satirical techniques on topics that were familiar to them, they still saw a deficit in their students’ overall cultural literacy that prevented them from recognizing satire on topics unfamiliar to them.

Our data show that satire is not something that can simply be “taught” in one session. It is a genre that students need to be exposed to consistently and through a variety of sources. According to instructors’ comments, the sources that benefited our students’ learning most were the video sources. Thus, we need to see our students’ connection to video and digital media as a strength and develop our instruction of satire accordingly. In addition, our students’ deficit in cultural literacy was observed by nearly every instructor. We will continue to bring as much of the world into our classrooms as possible.

2011-2012 A S S E S S M E N T M A T R I X

COURSE RDG 101 Effective College Reading

Teaching Goal

What it is faculty are trying to teach students in a particular lesson, unit or course.

Behavioral Outcomes

Observable behaviors or actions on the part of students that demonstrate that the learning intended in the teaching goal has occurred.

Measurements

Strategies / techniques / instruments for collecting feedback data that evidence the extent to which the desired behaviors are demonstrated by students.

Evaluation

Analysis and interpretation of the measurement results to determine the effectiveness with which the teaching goal is being achieved.

Modifications

Recommended actions that respond to the measurement results for improving the achievement of teaching goals.

1. To review strategies students need in order to prepare for advanced critical reading activities on the college level.

_____________________

Students will be able to: - apply appropriate organizing techniques (outlining, mapping, summarizing, etc.) in order to prepare assignments for class discussions and critical reading activities.

_____________________

Students will be able to:

- identify an issue or issues

- written assignments

- portfolios

A survey of RDG 101 instructors during the 2010-2011 academic year revealed the approximate percentage of students meeting a satisfactory level of performance for each of the seven goals of the matrix. It was found that only 60% of all RDG 101 students reached a satisfactory level of proficiency understanding and responding to satirical literature.

Fall 2012 instructors will be asked to incorporate the more helpful methods of teaching satire to their students.

We will encourage more use of video/visual techniques as well as more consistent exposure to satire and satirical techniques throughout the course of the semester.

2. To develop a repertoire of critical reading strategies to be used with a broad spectrum of mature and challenging readings.

in a reading selection

- identify the writer’s position on the issue(s)

- map/summarize the positions in an argument - distinguish fact from opinion and differentiate between informed and uninformed opinions using appropriate criteria to make this distinction

- evaluate the validity of arguments (logic, syllogisms, cause Æ effect, etc.) - recognize and understand the power of persuasive language - recognize tone, purpose, and point of view as aids in critical reading - build background information necessary for making critical judgments related to the reading material ____________________ Students will be able to: - evaluate and form a critical opinion of

______________________

- written assignments - class discussions - group work

In the fall of 2011, there were 591 students enrolled in 25 sections (8 full-time/17 adjuncts) of RDG 101. Of those, 531 (90%) completed the class. Of that cohort, 441 students, or 83% scored at or above the satisfactory level (a 70% grade) on tasks utilized to assess proficiency with the various aspects of satire. 356 students (67%) scored above a satisfactory level (an 80% grade).

In the spring of 2012, there were 267 students enrolled in 16 sections (10 full-time/ 6 adjunct) of RDG 101 which were part of the assessment group (three sections were not). Of those, 228 (85%) completed the class. Of that cohort, 195 students, or 86% scored at or above the satisfactory level (a 70% grade) on tasks utilized to assess

At our summer colloquium, instructors will be provided with professional development regarding the use of these techniques and sources of visual satire.

Instructors will again be required to submit numerical grades as well as anecdotal information detailing the effects of using these techniques on their students’ understanding of satire.

_____________________3. To encourage students to read literature for pleasure and insight into the human condition with a focus on the elements of: character, conflict, plot, setting and theme

_____________________4. To develop and reinforce strategies for context-based vocabulary, including the ability to define words and interpret phrases as encountered in authentic

literature - interact mentally with characters so as to better understand human needs, motivation, experiences and the consequences of one’s actions

____________________ Students will be able to: - explain and paraphrase passages with new words and new uses of words - explain words and phrases related to abstract ideas - interpret the meaning of figurative language

_____________________ Students will be able to: - locate information on a chosen topic - use appropriate organizing techniques to find the main ideas and supporting arguments or details for each reading - create a well-organized synthesis of this material (combine into a single

______________________ - reviews (oral and written) and respond to the reviews written by others

- literary letters

- journal entries

- class discussions

- literature circles

- creative activities involving the interpretation of various aspects of work

proficiency with the various aspects of satire. 166 students (73%) scored above a satisfactory level (an 80% grade).

The data show that satire is not something that can simply be “taught” in one session. It is a genre that students need to be exposed to consistently and through a variety of sources.

According to instructors’ comments, the sources that benefited our students’ learning most were the video sources. Thus, we need to see our students’ connection to video and digital media as a strength and develop our instruction of satire accordingly.

Students’ deficit in cultural literacy was observed by

reading passages rather than in vocabulary books or from lists.

_____________________ 5. To enable students to synthesize information from a variety of sources for academic and personal needs. _____________________ 6. To understand and respond to satirical literature and political cartoons _____________________7. To develop strategies for accessing useful text-based

outline, map, summary, etc.) - use the synthesis to write a report, essay, speech or other project _____________________ Students will be able to: - recognize the use of sarcasm and satire and determine the author’s purpose and point of view - interpret political cartoons and respond to them ____________________ Students will be able to: - utilize specific key words, terms, etc. for accessing information from on-line sources - familiarize themselves with various search engines and master the techniques required to access information from these search engines - understand the key concept and vocabulary related to Internet research - develop tools and strategies for evaluating

____________________ - written assignments - group work - discussion

_____________________ - maps - outlines - summaries - written assignments - oral reports - group work ______________________- written assignments - research reports/projects

nearly every instructor. We will continue to bring as much of the world into our classrooms as possible.

information (paper and electronic resources, ex. journals, websites) _____________________8. To

the dependability and accuracy of information of websites as sources of information - become familiar with the readability and appropriateness of various websites - become facile at synthesizing information from various sources into a body of research appropriate for college- level and workplace literacy requirements (tasks) ____________________ Students will be able to: - independently monitor and adjust their reading process to the demands of material they are reading for optimum comprehension

- group work - discussions _____________________ - written assignments - class discussions - group work

provide students with a variety of reading experiences and challenges though which they can continue to improve and refine their skills through substantial, intact readings, rather than isolated skills exercises and short readings

____________________ - written assignments - class discussions - self-evaluation assignments

Modification for the 2012-2013 Academic Year:

Based on our findings from the 2011-2012 year, our Fall, 2012 instructors will be asked to incorporate the more helpful methods of teaching satire to their students. We will encourage more use of video/visual techniques as well as more consistent exposure to satire and satirical techniques throughout the course of the semester. At our summer colloquium, instructors will be provided with professional development regarding the use of these techniques and sources of visual satire. Instructors will again be required to submit numerical grades as well as anecdotal information detailing the effects of using these techniques on their students’ understanding of satire.

4. NURSING DEPARTMENT

Assessment in the Nursing Department

Submitted by Jane Brody, member Nursing Department Assessment Committee

Based on written and verbal responses in the spring and summer of 2010 from our accrediting agency, the National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission (NLNAC), the Nursing Department has been working to update our four core courses to better reflect current nursing education terminologies and methodologies. This is not a major revision of our curriculum but is instead an effort to indicate changes in teaching practice that we have already made but were not shown clearly in our written outlines and syllabi.

The Department is also looking at the General Education goals and how they are met in Nursing. The Department selected NUR101and NUR203 to assess Gen Ed in the area of critical thinking. In the fall of 2011, we changed the student assignment for the nursing process (our critical thinking method) from a process record to a concept map (see attached for NUR101 concept map and below for NUR203 concept map). This decision to utilize concept maps as the written component for the clinical experience was based on a review of current nursing education literature which states the maps allowed for more critical thinking because links between health problems were addressed. This change is also reflective of long standing student requests for written assignments other than the very lengthy process records. The students’ performance on concept maps is being assessed based on a rubric that was piloted in the spring of 2011(see attached). Students were provided the rubric to better guide them in completing the assignment. Grading has been done utilizing the rubric for feedback to the student.

We chose NUR101 and NUR203 for data collection in the fall of 2011 because that is when the larger number of sections of those courses is offered. NUR105 and NUR204 will have data collection in the spring of 2012 when more sections of those courses are offered. The NUR101 student performance is being assessed based on not meeting, approaching, meeting and exceeding the standard set by the rubric criteria in three areas: data collection, rationale for care, and total score. The NUR203 concept maps are being assessed by the rubric criteria in three areas: nursing problems, evaluations, and total score. These areas for assessment were chosen because faculty thought they best demonstrated a student’s ability to critically think. The last concept map of the semester was chosen to be assessed in order to allow both students and faculty more time with them before assessment. The data for this assessment will be completed and

submitted by faculty by the end of the fall 2011 semester. Based on this data we will make adjustments to the rubrics (probably give a range of points for each level). In another semester, after more data collection we will be using the concept maps as part of the course grade (rather than the current pass/fail).

Since rubrics and the concept map are new to the majority of faculty and students, the Assessment Committee did online surveys using the nursing learning center common course and the faculty common course on Blackboard. The results of the surveys follow.

Summary of Student Surveys Fall 2011

Rubrics and Concept Maps

Rubrics:

x 80% of students were new to use of rubrics x 54% felt they needed more orientation x 100% wanted to see examples of rubrics being used x 75% would like the use of rubrics reviewed over the semester x 94% said the rubrics enhanced (yes and somewhat) their understanding of assignments x 100% (yes and somewhat) said rubrics helped them complete assignments more efficiently x 92% (yes and somewhat) said rubrics increased their learning x 98% (yes and somewhat) felt more confident using rubrics x 100% (yes and somewhat) said the rubrics made grading more objective and balanced

Concept Maps

x 93% of students were new to concept maps x 92% would chose concept map over process record x 69% said yes, the concept maps increased critical thinking x 68% said yes, concept maps better reflected clinical practice x 78% said yes, concept maps helped see connection in care x 70% said yes, concept maps helped organize and prioritize care x Only 55% said yes, concept maps reinforced pathophysiology

Faculty Survey Results Fall 2011

Rubrics and Concept Maps

Rubrics:

x 22% of faculty felt their orientation to rubrics was insufficient x Orientation would be improved by: providing examples or rubrics used with assignments 61%, opportunity to work in small

groups and for individual orientation 72% x 72% said rubrics helped explain the assignments x 67% said rubrics increased efficiency of grading and assessment of students’ knowledge x 72% said rubrics made grading appear more objective and balanced x 78% said rubrics made it easier to review assignments with students x 95% wanted rubrics to be reviewed over the semester

Concept Maps

x 68% were of faculty were new to concept maps x 71% said they had sufficient orientation to concept maps x 52% said CM (compared to PR)improved critical thinking x 47% said CM (compared to PR)made grading more efficient x 52% said CM (compared to PR) better reflected clinical practice x 57% said CM (compared to PR) enhanced students’ ability to see connection in care x 63% said CM (compared to PR) assisted students in organizing and prioritizing x 43% said CM (compared to PR) reinforce pathophysiology x 94% of faculty preferred the CM over the PR x Use of CM could be improved by giving better directions (rubric) 83% and including CM in course grade 72%

Patient Info: Initials:

Age:

Admitting date:

Admitting Diagnosis:

Chief complaint:

PMH/PSH (co-morbidities)

Nursing Problem: #__

Supporting Data:

Nursing Problem: #____

Supporting Data:

Nursing Problem: #___

Supporting Data:

Nursing Problem: #____

Supporting Data:

Nursing Problem: Developmental #____

Supporting Data:

NUR 203 Concept Map

Nursing Interventions #__

Nsg Interventions/Actions #1.

Pathophysiology:

.

NUR 203 Concept Map

Nursing Interventions #__

Nursing Interventions: Developmental: #__

Nsg Interventions/Actions #____

NASSAU COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONCEPT MAP SCORING RUBRIC

DATE: ________ Rotation #_______ STUDENT: ____________________________ FACULTY SIGNATURE: ______________________________

TOPIC Not Meeting (<50%) Approaching (50-74%) Meeting (75-85%) Exceeding (85-100%) POINTS EARNED

Clustered Data Collection

15%

Less than 50% of the data is collected including nursing assessment, admitting diagnosis, chief complaint and co-morbidities. The assessment data is not appropriately clustered in the pertinent nursing problem boxes. Norms of diagnostic /lab tests are omitted

4

Admitting data including medical dx, chief complaint and co-morbidities are included in the center box. Some applicable, defining characteristic data are clustered and included in the appropriate Nsg Problem boxes. Norms of diagnostic /lab tests are omitted or placed in incorrect boxes.

8

Admitting data including medical dx, chief complaint and all co-morbidities are included in the center box. Most actual and relevant defining characteristic data and relevant co-morbidities are clustered in the appropriate nsg problem boxes. Norms of lab tests are included.

12

All admitting data is organized in center box. Actual and relevant defining characteristic data are clustered in an organized manner in appropriate boxes, including all diagnostic and lab tests, and all relevant co-morbidities. Only data that contributes to the Nsg. Problem are included in the specific boxes.

15

15

Nursing Problem Nursing problems are not accurate, or incomplete in

Nursing problems are minimally accurate, incomplete, or vaguely

At least 4 Nursing problems are accurately identified and

>4 Nursing problems are accurately identified, and

10%

number (4) according to the patient’s admitting diagnosis, admitting assessments and co-morbidities. Nutrition and developmental problems are not adequately developed.

3

identified according to the patient’s admitting diagnosis, admitting assessments and co-morbidities. Nutritional and developmental problems are identified, but no inter-relatedness is diagramed.

5

complete, including problems r/t the patient’s assessments, chief complaint, medical dx and co-morbidities. Most prioritizing is evident. Student identifies inter-relatedness between 2 or more Nsg. Problems.

8

prioritized. They include ALL admitting and current data and co-morbidities. Student appropriately identifies inter-relatedness between 3 or more Nsg. Problems nursing dotted (minimally related) or solid (greater relationship).

10

10

Scientific Reasoning /

Patho

physiology

10%

Vaguely identifies the scientific reasoning behind the patient’s adaptations and the admitting medical diagnosis and chief complaints. Does not include any scientific reasoning of co-morbidities.

3

Minimally identifies the scientific reasoning behind the patient’s admitting medical dx, and chief complaint. Pathophysiology is somewhat accurate for specific patient and identified nursing problems.

5

Adequately identifies the scientific reasoning behind the patient’s admitting medical dx, chief complaint, and at least 1 co-morbidity. Pathophysiology is accurate for specific patient and identified nursing problems. Some of the patient’s specific assessments/risks are highlighted.

8

Comprehensively identifies the scientific reasoning behind the patient’s admitting medical dx, chief complaint, and all relevant co-morbidities. Patho is accurate for specific patient and identified problems. Patient’s specific assessments and/or interventions are highlighted within the cited Pathophysiology.

10

10

TOPIC Not Meeting (<50%) Approaching (50-74%) Meeting (75-85%) Exceeding (85-100%) POINTS EARNED

Goals

5%

All goals are not appropriate and not stated in behavioral terms for each nursing problem

2

Most goals are not appropriate and not stated in behavioral terms for each nursing

3

Most goals are appropriate achievable, and stated in behavioral terms for each nursing problem

4

All goals are appropriate and stated in behavioral terms for each nursing problem

5

5

Actual Interventions

And Rationales

30%

Most interventions and rationales noted are actually assessment data (ie: monitor for, check for, assess for, etc). No clear priority order of actual interventions identified for the specific nursing problem.

10

Some interventions and rationales including appropriate medications are identified and reported with minimal detail and specificity within each appropriate nursing problem box. Some patient teaching noted.

15

Most of the interventions and rationales are identified in moderate detail, with some prioritizing of care. Patient teaching is included in most appropriate boxes. Some care by other Health Professionals is noted.

20

All of the actual interventions and rationalesare identified and are listed in specific, clear terminology in priority order. Patient teaching is included in all appropriate boxes. Specific care by other members of heath team is included.

30

30

Evaluation

Vaguely or doesn’t at all explain whether specific care was effective in meeting goals per nursing problem box. Does

Minimally: explains whether care was effective in meeting specific goals per nursing problem. Minimally includes reassessment

Moderately: explains whether care was effective in meeting goals; includes reassessment and/or revision of plan when applicable;

Comprehensively: explains whether care was effective in meeting goals individually and overall; includes reassessment

15% not include reassessment and/or

revision of plan when applicable.

4

and/or revision of plan when applicable; rarely compares patient’s adaptations today norms or to patient’s previous status.

8

and compares patient’s adaptations today to norms and patient’s previous status. Goal attainment

12

and/or revision of plan when applicable; and compares patient’s adaptations today to norms and patient’s previous status.

15

15

Overall presentation

And

Relationships between nsg problems

15%

Map layout is somewhat organized yet with limited identification of relationships b/t nursing problems.

College level expectations e.g. organization, structure, grammar, spelling, and appropriate references, not met

4

Map layout minimally shows effective thinking about the relationships b/t one or more nursing problems.

College level expectations e.g. organization, structure, grammar, spelling, and appropriate references, partially met.

8

Map layout is adequately organized and shows critical thinking about the relationships b/t two or more nursing problems.

College level expectations e.g. organization, structure, grammar, spelling, and one appropriate EBP article reference, and APA style, met.

12

Map layout is clear, organized and shows comprehensive and complex relationships between multiple nursing problems (4+)

College level expectations, e.g. structure, grammar, spelling, and more than one appropriate EBP article reference, APA style, comprehensively met.

15

15

LETTER GRADE EARNED

CONCEPT MAP RUBRIC PAGE 2

4. PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

COURSE-LEVEL ASSESSMENT: PSY 203, 204, 206, 208

1. The main thrust of our course-level assessment work this year has gone to piloting assessment methods for two of the goals for Psy 203:

1. Research Methods: We investigated the potential of methods of assessment other than multiple-choice exams while being fair

to students who lack the literacy skills to produce good written work. In Fall 2011, during our refinement of D (defining learning

goals & outcomes) and M (identifying or developing measures) we piloted an assessment for Research Methods. We found that

this quiz had good face and internal validity and our faculty members approve of this quiz. We will continue to use this standard

“Research Methods Quiz” (which can be found in Appendix C) in all Psy 203 sections when the instructor completes the unit on

research. The data collected from this quiz serves two purposes: 1. To demonstrate mastery of the Psy 203 course-level goal for

social science research and 2. To provide one piece of evidence for the departmental goal of mastering basic concepts in social

science research. As an alternative to this multiple choice quiz, we also collected data on students’ ability to design their own

simple studies. This alternative method of assessment provides students with differentiated instruction while also affording

them a greater opportunity to apply their knowledge to real-world social science research questions. The results of both

methods of assessment are summarized in the PSY 203 matrices.

2. Application of Psychology to everyday life. We created and piloted two different versions of an objective test designed to assess

Psy 203 students’ ability to apply psychological knowledge to everyday life. Once the data from these two pilot assessments was

analyzed, neither of these tests met our basic criteria for validity and faculty did not find either quiz particularly informative in

terms of student mastery of this goal. We also piloted methods of assessment that require that students write short essays,

develop portfolios, or journal on how each lesson applies to their own lives. The results of this method of assessment is also

summarized in the PSY 203 matrices. The faculty members of our department (as well as our professional organizations)

continue to investigate valid, reliable, and informative methods for developing this basic aspect of critical thinking in psychology

and for developing appropriate methods of assessment including service learning experiences and case studies.

COURSE-LEVEL ASSESSMENT MATRIX Department Psychology Course No. and Title PSY 203 Date Spr 2012

LEARNING GOALS In general terms, what faculty expects students to learn in a particular course.





1. Research Methods in Psychology: Understand and apply basic research methods in psychology, including research design, data analysis, and interpretation.

Major Emphasis

This goal

x Identify rationale for why psychology is a science

x Identify and explain the primary objectives of psychology

x Describe the basic characteristics of the science of psychology including experimental and other research

Standardized Departmental Exam:

Students will demonstrate their understanding of research in psychology through multiple items on a test. Student performance will be rated as follows:

Exceeding: 80% +

Meeting: 70%

Approaching: 60%

Not Meeting: <60%

Standardized Research Methods Exam:

N PCT

Faculty 10 42.00%

Sections 17 22.00%

Students 426 42.00%

Mean 72%

n pct

Failed 114 27%

Approached 90 21%

Met 95 22%

Exceeded 124 29%

In analyzing the data from the standardized Research Methods quiz, we discovered that the majority of our students do grasp the basic concepts around psychological research. The main challenge they faced is in interpreting the meaning of a correlation coefficient. Considering the fact that more than 30% of the Psy 203 students require some sort of remediation, we have decided that this mathematical concept is probably beyond their reach at this point in their education. We will instead focus on the understanding that correlation does not mean causation rather than on interpreting the actual number.

----------------------------------------

aligns with:

x Gen Ed Research

techniques used by psychologists

------------------------------------------------

Pilot measurements: Students were given a choice of 3 possible research questions for which they needed to design a simple study. Sample of assignment and evaluation rubric are attached.

Exceeding: 80% or above

Meeting: 70-80%

Approaching: 60-70%

Not Meeting:< 60%

-----------------------------------------------------

Pilot eval of proficiency in research methods:

N

Faculty 1

Sections 1

Students 26

Mean 80%

n pct

Failed 1 3%

Approached 5 19%

Met 5 19%

Exceeded 15 58%

Students were better able to demonstrate their mastery when designing a simple study than when they answered multiple choice questions. Faculty will be encouraged to consider allowing students to demonstrate their mastery in this way.

COURSE-LEVEL ASSESSMENT MATRIX Department Psychology Course No. and Title PSY 203 Date Spr 2012






2. Critical Thinking in Psychology

Moderate Emphasis

This Goal Aligns with:

x Dept (APA) Goal 2 x Gen Ed Critical

Thinking x NCC Mission

3. Application of Psychological Principals

Moderate Emphasis

This goal aligns with:

x Dept (APA) Goal 1B

x Dept (APA) Goal 4

Use the concepts, language, and major theories of the discipline to account for psychological phenomena such as describe behavior and mental processes empirically, including operational definitions, identify antecedents and consequences of behavior and mental processes, Interpret behavior and mental processes at an appropriate level of complexity, use theories to explain and predict behavior and

Standardized Departmental Exam Multiple Choice exam (attached) in which the items describe real-life situations. Students must apply their knowledge of psychological concepts or theories to answer questions. Because students are expected to only have an emerging understanding of how psychology informs daily life, performance on this exam is rated as follows:

Exceeding: 50% +

Meeting: 36-49%

Approaching:25-35%

Critical thinking/Pilot 1: Application in psychology exam

N PCT

Faculty 3 0.09%

Sections 5 6.94%

Students 100 3.86%

Mean 50

Failed 8 8.00%

Approached 42 42.00%

Met 45 45.00%

Exceeded 5 5.00%

Critical thinking/Pilot 2: Application in psychology exam

In terms of the Pilot Standardized Departmental Exam, the distribution of student performance on this pilot exam is expected, given that this is an introductory course. However the face validity of this exam seemed unsatisfactory to the faculty. We will continue to experiment with more effective standardized methods of assessing students’ ability to apply what they have learned.

The brief reaction papers, reports, and portfolios that are used by several faculty seem to yield a different distribution. Here students did overwhelmingly better.

x NCC Mission mental processes

Not Meeting: <25%

Brief papers, reports, or

presentations in which

N PCT

Faculty 5 21%

Sections 5 7%

Students 105 4%

Mean 39%

Failed 13 12%

Approached 30 29%

Met 43 41%

Exceeded 19 18%

Brief reactions papers, reports, presentations

N PCT

Faculty 6 18%

Sections 12 16%

Students 349 13%

Mean 76%

n pct

A follow-up study will be conducted to determine the criterion validity of the various methods of assessment. Methods that most strongly predict student outcome in their Psy 203 class will be retained for further use in our assessment process.

students demonstrate their mastery of critical thinking and applying psychology to real-life situations.

The evaluation rubric used to evaluate student performance is attached

Failed 23 6.59%

Approached 21 6.02%

Met 97 27.79%

Exceeded 208 59.60%

6. MATH DEPARTMENT

GEN ED GLOBAL COMPETENCIES MATRIX CRITICAL THINKING

Department MAT/CSC/ITE Course No. and Title MAT 102 Introduction to Statistics Date 11/15/2012

LEARNING GOALS

What faculty expects students to learn in a particular course.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

What students will be able to do that will demonstrate that the related Learning Goal has been achieved.

MEASUREMENT

Measurement design (including measures, performance criteria, rubrics, ratings, etc.) that will be used to demonstrate and differentiate student performance for each learning outcome.

1. Students will develop critical thinking skills through their exposure to the methods of evidence and reasoning utilized to advance understanding in a subject field.

1. Identify, analyze and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or other’s work, as demonstrated by their ability to decide whether the explicit or implicit premises of a (subject specific) argument contain enough true, relevant information to justify acceptance of its conclusion; to explain why the premises do or do not support a conclusion; to understand the methods scientists use as a systematic application of critical thinking; to exercise other specified abilities with respect to the analysis of arguments important to the applications of the subject field.

2. Develop well-reasoned arguments, as demonstrated by their ability to present a claim and support it with evidence; to anticipate and respond to criticisms and counter-arguments; to exercise other specified abilities with respect to the development of well-reasoned arguments important to the applications of the subject field.


1. Identify/Describe Measure(s).

_____ Paper / Report Ϯ__X__ Exam: Short Answer __X__ Exam: Ess ayϮ__X__ Exam: Multiple Choice _____ Presentation Ϯ BBBBB�Assignment Ϯ_____ Field / Lab Project _____ Other (specify)

Students will be given 4 questions throughout the semester in order to measure the two learning outcomes.

These questions will be administered on in class exams and/or on the final exam and will consist of both short answer & long answer part II type questions. The questions and grading rubrics are attached to this matrix.

Questions and Rubrics to Meet the Standards for Assessing Infused Competencies Math 102 - Introduction to Statistics

Learning Outcome #1:ϮStudents will demonstrate the ability to estimate and check mathematical results for reasonableness.

The z-score of a student's test grade is –1.35. If the mean is 70, which of the following could be the value of the student's grade: a) 70 b) 85 c) 63 d) cannot be estimated

Explain your answer.

The answers to each of the following questions are to be graded as “exceeding expectations,” “meeting expectations,” “approaching expectations,” or “not meeting expectations”

Rating

Components of Answer

Exceeding Expectations

. a) Answers choice c

. b) Reasons that since the z-score is negative, choice c is the only one of the three choices which would have a negative z-score since it is less than them mean of 70

Meeting Expectations

Answers choice c but provides no explanation

Approaching Expectations

Answers d and reasons that the standard deviation is missing so that the raw score cannot be calculated from x �z� ��P

Not Meeting Expectations

Contains none of the above content

Office for Assessment and Program Review: May 2010

2

Learning Outcome #1:ϮStudents will demonstrate the ability to recognize the limits of mathematical and statistical

methods.

A sales manager used linear regression to find the positive linear relationship between advertising expenditures and sales. The amount of advertising expenditures used to generate the regression equation went from 8,000 to 45,000.

If the sales manager used this equation to predict the amount of sales that he can expect for advertising expenditures of 55, 000 and 65,000, which prediction would probably be more reliable?

Explain.

Rubric

Rating



. a) Answers that the 55,000 value would be more reliable.

. b) Reasons that the 55,000 value is closer to the known data values.

. c) Reasons that statistical variation in the slope of the regression line results in greater error the further the extrapolation is extended from the data.


2 of the above components


1 of the above components


Contains none of the above components


3

Learning Outcome #2:

Perform the indicated hypothesis test. Write the null and alternative hypothesis. State the Decision Rule. State whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis and give a reason. Answer the question in the context of the problem.

A recent study claimed the average cholesterol level for all eighth grade students to be 190 with V� �30 . The school nurse feels that this number is too low. Choosing a random sample of 80 students, she finds their average cholesterol to be 197. Using D�= 5% , would this be enough evidence to indicate that the nurse is correct?

Rating



a) States the hypotheses correctly

b) States a Decision Rule including the appropriate p-value or critical value

c) Gives the correct conclusion d) Answers the question


Contains 3 of the above components




Contains none of the above components


4

Learning Outcome #2:ϮStudents will demonstrate the ability to employ quantitative methods such as, arithmetic, algebra,

geometry, or statistics to solve problems.

Matt and Ann, in different statistics classes, were given the same exam. The exam results are in the table below.

If Matt scored an 80 on his exam and Ann scored an 85 on her exam, which student performed better relative to their class?

Write a sentence (or two) that justifies your answer.

Mean Grade

Standard Deviation

Matt’s Class

70

5

Ann’s Class

80

10

Rating



Shows correct formula and calculation of z-score for both students:

zMatt [0DWW��P �� zAnn [$QQ��P �� V��V��

Notes that the z-score is the measure of a student’s (data value’s) relative standing in a class (population).ϮNotes that a larger z -score means the student performed better relative to their class.

Meeting Expectations Contains 2 of the above components



Not Meeting Expectations Contains none of the above components

* FOR EACH PROPOSED

MODIFICATION:

(1) Describe the implementation process as it actually occurred.

A. Re-state proposed modifications, plans and timelines.

The proposed modification, for those subject areas that were indicated by the poor test scores, is to provide more class time for each of these topics.

B. Describe actual implementation of modifications, noting any adjustments to proposed plans or timelines and why these were considered necessary.

Extra class time was provided to present each of these subject areas during the fall semester of 2010.

*FOR EACH LEARNING OUTCOME

ADDRESSED BY MODIFICATIONS:

(1) Identify/Describe Measure(s).


___x_ Exam: Short Answer

_____ Exam: Essay


_____ Presentation

_____ Assignment



(2) Re-Specify Measurement Design and Process.

A. Describe how, if at all, modifications changed the methods / measures for assessing relevant Learning Outcomes.

*FOR EACH LEARNING OUTCOME

ADDRESSED BY MODIFICATIONS:

(1) Specify Measurement Samples:

N %

Students __13_ _100_

Sections __1 _ _ 100_

Faculty __1__ _100_

(2) Report Results (Distribution of Raw Scores).

The determination of the effectiveness of the modifications that were applied to improve these four areas of deficiency is based upon the measured responses to test problems similar to those that were given during the evaluation phase. The percentage established for each of these learning outcomes is the average of the thirteen student test scores pertaining to the particular learning outcome. The test problems given to the students are attached to the reassessment matrix.

* FOR EACH IMPROVEMENT:

(1) Specify whether and how, relative to the course Learning Goals, this is a major, modest or minor improvement.

As indicated in the EVALUATION section, there were improvements in three of the four learning outcome areas.

C.i. There was a major improvement in students’ understanding and implementation of the solution process of linear, homogeneous differential equations.

C.ii. There was a modest improvement concerning the linear, nonhomogeneous differential equations case. This is an extension of the topic referred to in C.i.. A significantly different kind solution process, one that has no cross-reference to the topics in calculus, is applied. Therefore, additional class time should be provided for the presentation of this topic.

*CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS:

ɿ Do course or curricular modification and / or improvements necessitate revisions of the Departmental Assessment Plan?

Since the modifications that were subsequently implemented lead to improvements in the students’ performance, there is no need for a revision in the assessment process.

ɿ If modifications were not found to improve specified student Learning Outcomes, will they be re-implemented and re-assessed? Will they be revised prior to re-implementation? Will other modifications be implemented instead to address the Learning Outcomes?

There was one case in which there was no improvement as a result of the classroom modification. However, this analysis provided the

(2) Re-state goals for improvement in student Learning Outcomes due to proposed modifications.

There are four topics referred to above, and each is indicated directly below with the alpha-numeric reference to the assessment matrix.

A.i. Determine if a set of elements forms a vector space.

C.i. Solve a homogeneous linear differential equation.

C.ii. Solve a nonhomogeneous linear differential equation.

C.iv. Solve a system of nonhomogeneous linear differential equations.

The same method is being implemented to establish measures for the analysis.

B. Describe in detail how, if at all, modifications changed the performance criteria, ratings structure, rubrics, etc. that were used to differentiate student performance (i.e., Exceeding, Meeting, Approaching, Not Meeting…expectations).

Decisions pertaining to improvements based upon the classroom modifications are determined by a comparison of the same measurement procedures for the assessment and reassessment.

Students Percent

A.i. 13 42

C.i. 13 89

C.ii. 13 86

C.iv. 13 79

(3) Report Aggregate Student Performance Relative to Prescribed Expectations:

A.i. N %

Not Meeting _12__ _92__

Approaching __1__ __8__

Meeting __0__ __0__

Exceeding __0__ __0__

Total __13_ _100_

C.i. N %

Not Meeting _ 1__ _ _8_

Approaching __1__ __8 _

C.iv. There was minor improvement in class performance. Since the solution process for solving a system of first order, nonhomogeneous differential equations is multifaceted and therefore lengthy, more class time should be provided.

(2) Specify if and how the department plans to integrate the improvement into all sections of the relevant course(s).

The recommendation to the instructors of this course by the MAT 226 committee is to provide additional instructional time for the presentation of these four topics, and thus to decrease the class time pertaining to the subject areas of which student comprehension is significantly high.

(3) If the department plans any professional development around the improvement, please describe.

I anticipate no additional

instructional perspective concerning the difficulty levels of the various learning goals. The modifications to follow, the apportionment of the proper classroom time for each subtopic, can now be efficiently adjusted to obtain significant improvements in these unique subject areas. No other modification methodology, in this instructor’s opinion, is necessary to attain the goals indicated in this assessment document.

ɿ Has your department identified programmatic goals? Is there a good alignment between these and the Learning Goals of the courses in the department?

The course structure, as developed by the faculty of the department, is sufficient as a guide to present the significant subtopics of the linear algebra and linear differential equations theories. This syllabus includes the Learning Goals that are stated in this assessment analysis.

Meeting __3__ _23_

Exceeding __8__ _61__

Total __13_ _100_

C.ii. N %

Not Meeting _ 3__ _ 23_

Approaching __1__ __8_

Meeting __1__ __8_

Exceeding __8__ _61_

Total __13_ _100_

C.iv. N %

Not Meeting _ 4__ _31__

Approaching __2__ _15__

Meeting __0__ __0__

Exceeding __7__ _54__

Total __13_ _100_

(4) Interpret Results Relative to Goals for Improvement.

department recommended professional development plans for the proper presentation of the course material.

ɿ Are there institution-wide issues affecting student Learning Outcomes that the department has identified through course level assessment?

The concern of the institution with respect to any course is to include, within the syllabus, equivalence with the minimal subtopic requirements that are acceptable to the academia community. Therefore, it is important that the Learning Outcomes, contained within the minimal subtopic requirements, are included and properly presented to our students. Since, in my opinion, the Learning Outcomes of this assessment satisfy the above stated conditions, the institution-wide requirements are satisfied.

ɿ Compare results to previous raw scores and aggregate criteria data. Were goals met for improved performance on student learning

outcomes?

A.i. The result after the modification does not show an improvement based upon the test scores. This topic requires more class time. This particular subject is difficult for the students because of the abstract nature of the mathematics. The students have to demonstrate the viability of fundamental laws of algebra. This type of method of solution is not one that is presented to the calculus student.

C.i. The 61% exceeding a grade of B+ is a significant improvement. The initial assessment indicated 0% for this category. The classroom modification was obviously effective.

C.ii. There was a small improvement in the percentages. Essentially there was a small decrease in the Not Meeting percentage and a small

increase in the Exceeding percentage. In general, the modification was helpful.

C.iv. Although there was a small improvement in the Not Meeting percentage, it appears that the modification did not significantly improve the class performance. Additional class time should be provided.

II 1. Professor David Pecan, English Department

Critical Thinking/Information Management English 101/102

Assessment Handbook Contribution

As an instructor in composition and English electives, the process of assessment in the areas of the SUNY General Education

Requirements is not easily reduced to a simple series of workshops or skill sets. It is my hope that the two following sample course assignments,

drawn from sections of my ENG 101 and ENG 102, will provide some small suggestion as to how assessment practices can be imbedded into

assignment design. In accordance with the ten categories of knowledge and skill established by the State University of New York Board of

Trustees in 1998, the following two samples attempt to provide opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate competency in the

Humanities and Western Civilization, while the first sample also provides developmental work in American History and Social Science. In regard

to the development of competency in the two key areas of Information Management and Critical Thinking, both samples offer opportunities for

demonstrating competency in Critical Thinking. Both assignments could be augmented to involve the appropriation and evaluation of material

from on-line sources, electronic and print periodicals, and information drawn from interviews, group discussions, and multimedia sources to

satisfy requirements in the area of Information Management. Specifically, assignment augmentation would take the form of Information

Management skills involving personal computer use, the gathering of information from a variety of sources, and the practice of basic research

techniques.

In their current form, however, both assignments allow students to analyze and evaluate information, opinions, and arguments on a given

subject. In the case of the prompt for ENG 101, the topic concerns the analysis of expository prose that develops opinions regarding the individual

in society, the applications of power in political discourse and public order, and actions of dissent and resistance. The sample drawn from ENG

102 allows the student to engage in the critical analysis of the aesthetic content of various texts, in conjunction with qualifying critical statements

attached to selected “literary traditions” or “schools of thought.” In both samples, the student is afforded the opportunity to develop clearly stated,

well-reasoned arguments as part of this process of analysis and evaluation. In each case, the samples direct the student to the evaluation of points

of view expressed in multiple texts, to consider these texts in relation to one another, and to develop their own argument through the evaluation

and assimilation of these multiple viewpoints. Where possible or appropriate, ideas developed during group work, class discussions, and

individual brainstorming can be incorporated as subject matter into this process, thereby expanding the possibilities which allow the student to

progress from critique to argumentation.

If the following samples differ in any way from the SUNY rubric for the evaluation of argumentation, it is in the assignments’ inclusion of

assessment criteria for what makes an argument “acceptable” or “sufficient.” While I certainly agree with the SUNY stipulation that defining

these two qualifying terms is difficult, there are several ways in which skill sets associated with the execution of evaluation, analysis, and

argumentation can be included as part of the determination of the “acceptable” and/or “sufficient” nature of a student response to the assignment.

Since each response must take the form of a typed, properly structured, clearly documented essay, students are expected to accurately quote and/or

paraphrase the opinions expressed in source materials, to structure analytical sections in accordance with rules of paragraphing, and to clearly

demonstrate the relationship between the information evaluated and the argument developed in their response.

Sample Number One:

Professor David Pecan

ENG 101 Composition I

Midterm Exercise

Our work to this point has concerned two primary areas of focus. Initially, we have engaged in the rhetorical analysis of The Declaration of

Independence, in conjunction with the reading of Franklin’s “Rules for Reducing a Great Empire to a Small One,” Stanton’s draft of Declaration

of Sentiments, and The Black Panther Party Platform and Program, in order to consider issues of influence and revision in the framing of

literature of dissent. Secondly, having had the opportunity to read and discuss selections from the writings of Machiavelli, Rousseau, Thoreau,

and Dr. King, we have prepared in-class and take-home body paragraph development exercises and engaged in group exercises designed to help

you make connections between the ideas of these authors and contemporary events in our own society. It is now finally time for you to write an

analytical essay. Based on topics provided at the start of this unit, several questions have been reproduced in this prompt. Please select ONE of

these questions and respond by preparing an analytical essay (4-7 pages, 12 font, double-spaced, MLA format documentation) that discusses your

response. The essay must make use of the analysis of quotations from at least four of the readings, as well as any additional material that you may

feel is appropriate and helpful to your argument.

1) What Role Does “Force” Play in Social Stability and/or Dissent?

2) How Can Society Define and Maintain Justice?

3) What Are the Responsibilities of the Individual in Collective Society?

4) What Problems Are We Faced with When We Try to Choose Between “Freedom” and “Order”?

Sample Number Two:

Professor David Pecan

ENG 102 Composition II: Introduction to Literature

Final Comparative Exercise

In previous class meetings, we have had the opportunity to discuss Zola’s novel Therese Raquin, the Ambrose Bierce short story “An

Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” and the Jack London short story “To Build a Fire,” and to utilize group exercises to read and analyze selected

passages from each of these texts. Often, we have noted the vivid detail that each of these authors’ have used to characterize their respective

protagonists and describe narrative events. Additionally, we have considered how literary movements, such as Naturalism, Realism, and

Expressionism have enabled writers to explore particular ideas through specific styles of description. It is now time for you to draft and revise a

detailed comparison of these texts by 1) analyzing at least one passage selected from each text, 2) characterizing the descriptive tendencies of each

author in relation to either Naturalism, Realism, or Expressionism, and 3) considering the relationship between one particular literary movement

and the thematic content of just one of these texts. Ultimately, what does the theme of a particular text demonstrate about a particular literary

movement and the motivations of a particular author? How does this allow us to evaluate that author’s work? How does it help us to place that

author within the larger context of his contemporaries and/or other literary movements? How does this shape our experience as a reader?

It will be necessary for you to develop your argument through the organization of ideas, the detailed analysis of textual examples, and the focused

argument that demonstrates a relationship between your ideas and the evidence.

IDEAS: May be drawn from class lecture, class discussion, group work, your own brainstorming sessions or post-reading writings

sessions, and opinions drawn from secondary sources (this last component is not required but welcome). Remember to develop your ideas

through the evaluation and assimilation of a variety of viewpoints.

ORGANIZATION: Keep in mind that you have several different questions to consider, and will need to make choices about the focus and

progression of your argument. Remember to follow the Statement-Support-Discussion Pattern. Remember to use paragraphing to support

both focus and organization.

ANALYSIS: Each properly developed section of your essay must make use of the detailed analysis of quotations to develop your point—

this includes the careful definition of terms.

Five to Seven Pages, MLA Format.

General Best Practices

1. Professor Anne Cubeta, Hospitality Business: NTR195, NTR 158

NASSAU COMMUNITY COLLEGE

NTR 158 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF FOOD

INTERVIEW PROJECT MEMO

Professor Anne Cubeta

This project is my favorite project to assign. It has several purposes to build skills and to force most of you out of your “comfort zone” by requiring that you speak with someone “different” from you. The skills I hope you will build are:

1- Interviewing/Communication skills 2- Listening skills 3-Writing skills. Here is what you need to do:

1- Find someone who was born and raised in another culture. Preferably, someone NOT from your own culture, find someone you don’t know, or don’t know very well. Some students have interviewed family members in the past, but I request that you don’t use them for this project. If you have a family member who was born somewhere else and you don’t know about their life, please talk to them and use it as practice for this project. You may find out a lot of things you don’t know about them and your ancestry that you may find interesting. I had one student who interviewed his grandfather and he died the next day. It was very sad but he was so glad that he had the opportunity to do it!

The person you find may have an accent or trouble speaking English. That is ok. In fact it is part of the learning experience. You may need to learn how to listen better, to understand what they are saying or get a translator to help you. This is what you would do in the real world if you had to communicate with someone.

2- Set up an interview time and a list of questions you want to ask. Look at the project sheet for some sample questions. I especially want you to find out about their eating habits; in their homeland and now (how have they changed?) BUT, also I want you to learn about why they came here, when and how they got here, what they do here, what their life was like back home, etc. You will get personal and you will need to learn how to ask questions that get the person to talk. Get as many details and descriptions as you can. Ask about how their kitchen smelled at home when the food was cooking, where they got their food, ( market, farm? etc.) Do not be surprised if people start to cry when you ask these things! It can be very emotional asking about these topics, people may get very homesick. Ask to record the interview if you are able, so you don’t have to write so much as you are speaking.

3- Write their story in narrative form. Using your best writing ability, write their story. Use your best grammar, vocabulary, lots of descriptive sentences (especially when describing food,) as if you are in an English class. Start with a great first sentence to make me interested. Remember, everyone has an interesting story and I am very interesting in hearing it. Here are two examples of great first sentences that students wrote:

(This first one was written in the first person, but that was just the style used. I prefer that you use the 3rd person. But “google” writing styles if you like and decide what works for you.)

Example one:

“Thirty of us climbed into the back of a tanker truck to get across the border. Once we were across, fifteen of us got out. The ‘coyotes’

buried the dead in the desert.”

Gripping, right? I want to know more! By the way, “coyotes” refer to the people who help smuggle people over the border from Mexico.

Example two:

“ Ivana sat in front of a computer screen with an application to become a mail order bride in America in front of her. She moved the curser to send and clicked.”

This is what I expect from you, your best writing. Writing skills will help you no matter what field you are in. You need to develop them.

GOOD LUCK! Email me if you have questions!

2. Rona Casciola, Marketing, Retailing & Fashion:

Assessing the Creative Student

BEST PRACTICES

ASSESSING FOR THE CREATIVE STUDENT

By

Rona Casciola

The Fashion Design program is a career program. We offer technical courses for students interested in pursuing careers in fashion design and related areas of the fashion industry.

How We Assess the Creative Students:

The Fashion Design courses are not part of the SUNY General Education curriculum.

We do, however, use the Goals-Based Assessment Matrix in the course-level assessment of our students’ learning and progress. Our

students need to be proficient in many areas with emphasis on the technical courses. This is reflected into creating goals, student

objectives, and measurements. When assessing the creative student we use design projects as a form of measurement. Students are

assessed on both technical abilities and creative skills. In our program the faculty uses grading sheets as rubrics to evaluate student

projects, collect data and evaluate results. Since evaluating creative work is subjective, we have devised a system that helps guide faculty

to determine a fair grade. The grading sheets are broken down by grade points into specific categories. Using the grading sheets enables

the students to understand which of their skills are deficient and which need to be corrected for future projects.

3. Dr. Lisa J. Korman, Department of Psychology:

Psy 203

Nassau Community College

General Psychology - PSY203 - Dr. Lisa J. Korman

Information Gathering

Semester Portfolio Project Guidelines

Each portfolio entry is to by typed, double spaced, font size 10 to 12. Do not misplace this guideline sheet; it is your record of your assignments, and your accumulation of points for the portfolio portion of your grade.

Portfolio

Topic

Instructions Date Due Grade

1.

What is Psychology?

Your syllabus includes a variety of topics to be discussed this semester. Using your textbook as a guide, define each term in one to three sentences. Place an * beside the term that is most interesting to you.

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations

3- exceeded expectations

2.

Related Current

Newspaper Article

Using your textbook and portfolio assignment 1 as a guide, search a current newspaper, not an online version, (from the week this assignment is due) for an article that addresses some aspect of psychology. Clip or photocopy the article, and write a ½ to 1 page critical review explaining how it connects to our curriculum. Do not summarize the article… (I can read it myself).

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


3.

Identifying a

Peer-Reviewed Journal

Now that you know what psychology is… select the chapter/topic that is most interesting to you (the one with the * from portfolio 1), and identify and copy 5 peer-reviewed journal references (post 2000) from the textbook. For each of the 5 items you

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

Article

must include:

a) the referenced text

(copied from the text book)

b) the full citation, APA style

(copied from the reference

section of the text book)

2- met expectations


4.

Library Visit

Primary Source Search

As a class, we will visit the library and learn to use the college search engine and LibGuide to locate an article from the archives. Armed with your 5 item reference page, locate and print one of your referenced articles.

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


5.

Anatomy of

an Article

Please highlight (using a highlighter) the following information on the printout of your peer-reviewed journal article:

a) Title, author and journal, on article and reference page

b) hypothesis (only 1) c) n (# and description) d) research method e) conclusion (only 1) f) suggestion(s) for future research

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


6.

Psychology on the Web

Please identify three (3) good sites related to any aspect of sensation and/or perception, and one site that you have deemed “no good”.

For each please indicate:

1) the “search words” you used to get to the site,

2) the number search item it was (e.g., item 11 of 31,800)

3) the full web address

Write a ½ page review of your favorite site on your list, and a ½ page review on the rejected site. Indicate why you selected or rejected the site as a valuable source of information.

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


7.

Magazine Advertisement

Find an ad in a magazine that employs learning theory in its marketing, and identify the following in list/chart form:

US, UR, (initially neutral) NS, CS, CR

Also, write a ½ page narrative explaining the use of conditioning in this ad, and your opinion of its efficacy.

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


8.

Development in Literature and Film

Identify a piece of literature or feature length film that explores someone’s developmental journey. Write a 2 page analysis of the story (spend ½ page – no more, no less relating the plot… do not assume that I have read the story or seen the film) connecting it meaningfully to a specific theory or idea in your textbook.

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


9.

Related Music Lyrics

Using our textbook as a guide, identify a song that relates to any topic of personality or psychological disorders. Write a 1-page reaction to the lyrics or the video, and an explanation of its connection to the topic. Make sure to include a printout of the lyrics.

0 - missing

½ - late

1 – submitted

2- met expectations


Your accumulation of scores on these portfolio projects account for 50% of your final portfolio grade

Total

Points /27

Earned

Final Portfolio Paper

Guidelines and grading rubric will be distributed separately

/18

CRITICAL THINKING / APPLICATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS

EVALUATION RUBRIC FOR PSY 203 or other introductory level psychology course

RUBRIC FOR A JOURNAL ENTRY OR BRIEF REACTION PAPER (adapted from the APA Cyberguide to Assessment, 2007):

Assignment: Apply a psychological concept to a current event, a problem or phenomenon from everyday life, or an example gleaned from case studies.

Excellent

(2)

Good

(1.5)

Fair

(1)

Poor

(0)

Understanding of Topic Expressed complete understanding of scope, general importance, and personalized significance of the topic.

Expressed basic familiarity with the scope, general importance, and personalized significance of the topic

Limited familiarity with the scope and/or general importance of the topic

Unfamiliar with the scope and general importance of the topic.

Application of Material to real-life situations Full insight into how the psychological concept applies to this situation.

Emerging insight into how the psychological concept applies to this situation

Limited insight into how the psychological concept applies in this situation.

No application made

Language/Handwriting/Grammar/Punctuation

(optional for Psy 203)

The student’s work is clearly understandable. No errors in use of formal language conventions, spelling, grammar, handwriting or punctuation.

The student’s work is understandable. Only minor errors in use of formal language conventions, spelling, grammar, handwriting or punctuation.

The meaning of the student’s work is difficult to understand due to improper use of formal language conventions, spelling grammar, handwriting or punctuation errors.

The meaning of the student’s work is seriously impeded due to gross misuse formal language conventions, spelling, punctuation, grammar, or handwriting.

general education assessment handbook€¦ · assessment for general education (which follows this...

Documents