using institutional learning outcomes to foster meaningful dialogue and decision-making
DESCRIPTION
Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making. Giovanni Sosa, Ph.D. Chaffey College RP Conference 2013. ACCJC Standards. The Standards (pg.1) Instructional programs, student support services, and library and learning support - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making
Giovanni Sosa, Ph.D.Chaffey College
RP Conference 2013
![Page 2: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The Standards (pg.1)Instructional programs, student supportservices, and library and learning supportservices facilitate the achievement of theinstitution's stated student learning outcomes
ACCJC Standards
![Page 3: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Improving Institutional Effectiveness (IB)The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and makes changes to improve student learning…
ACCJC Standards
![Page 4: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Improving Institutional Effectiveness (IB)…[it] demonstrates its effectiveness by
providing 1) evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes…
ACCJC Standards
![Page 5: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
SLO Assessmentis a continual
process!Criteria
Means ofAssessment
Summary ofEvidence
LearningOutcomesStatement
Use ofResults
![Page 6: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Adopted Institutional SLOs◦ Communication◦ Critical Thinking & Information Competency◦ Community/Global Awareness & Responsibility◦ Personal, Academic, and & Career Development
http://www.chaffey.edu/general_info/competencies.shtml
Core Competencies
![Page 7: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Facione (1990) 46 experts were convened to discuss role of
CT in educational assessment and instruction
Identified Core CT skills and Sub-Skills
Critical Thinking
![Page 8: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
1) Interpretation – To comprehend/express meaning of wide variety of experiences
2) Analysis – Identify inferential relationships among statements/concepts
3) Evaluation – Assess the credibility of statements; assess logical strength of inferential statements/concepts
4) Inference – Form hypotheses
Critical Thinking: Core CT SKills
![Page 9: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
5) Explanation – To state results of one’s reasoning;
6) Self-Regulation – Self-reflection of one’s views to question or confirm reasoning
Critical Thinking: Core CT SKills
![Page 10: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
MSLQ (Pintrich, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987)◦ Developed in process of studying how to make
students more efficient learners
What does the CT assessment specifically measure?
Critical Thinking Assessment
![Page 11: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
CT assessment found to be statistically associated to course performance (r = .15)
Critical Thinking Assessment
Success Not Successful Total
High CT 57 42 100
Low CT 42 57 100
Total 100 100 200
![Page 12: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Pertains to issues of cultural diversity, human rights, and prejudice reduction – both within national borders and across national borders
Knowledge that individual possesses of other cultures (Cognitive)
The extent to which individual empathizes with values of other cultures (Affective)
Willingness to take stand on cultural issues (Participatory)
Global Awareness (Clarke, 2004)
![Page 13: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Inspired by Global Perspective Institute (Braskamp et al., 2011)◦ Holistic Human Development:
Cognitive domain (“Whatdo I know?”) Intrapersonal domain (“”Who am I?”) Interpersonal domain (“How do I relate to others?”)
What does our Global Awareness assessment specifically measure?
Global Awareness Assessment
![Page 14: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
1907 Total Responses 78 Courses 33 Departments
◦ Chemistry (N = 199)◦ English (N = 195)◦ Theatre (N =159)◦ Cinema (N = 154)◦ CIS (N = 137)◦ Economics (N = 102)
Voluntary Participation
Results: Course Characteristics
![Page 15: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
SampleN = 1,907
DistrictN = 56,216
Transferable to UC/CSU 69.8% 54.8%Transferable to CSU 13.2% 14.5%Not Transferable 16.9% 30.7%
Results: Course CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)
Transfer Status
![Page 16: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
SampleN = 1,907
DistrictN = 52,216
Face-to-face 96.5% 94.0%Hybrid 3.5% 2.2%Online 0.0% 3.8%
Results: Course CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)
Distance Learning
![Page 17: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
SampleN = 1,907
DistrictN = 52,216
Basic Skills 1.8% 16.0%Not Basic Skills 98.2% 84.0%
Results: Course CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)
Basic Skills
![Page 18: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
SampleN = 1,791
DistrictN = 18,434
Cum GPA 2.92 2.52Units Attempted 42.78 34.42Units Completed 40.80 31.32
Results: Student CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)
Performance Indicators
![Page 19: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SampleN = 1,791
DistrictN = 51,526
Success Rate 84.4 70.53Withdrawal Rate 3.3 11.1
Results: Student CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)
Performance Indicators
SampleN = 1,673
DistrictN = 43,767
GPA Converted Grade 2.88 2.61
![Page 20: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Critical Thinking
![Page 21: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
CT Level Range PercentileLow 0 – 19 ≤24th PercentileMedium 20 – 28 25-74th PercentileHigh 29 - 35 ≥75th Percentile
Critical Thinking: Levels
![Page 22: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Variables Examined:◦ First Generation Status◦ Gender◦ Age Range◦ Parents’ Education◦ Ethnicity◦ UC/CSU Transfer vs. Non-Transferable
CT Differences by Demographics/Course Transfer Status
![Page 23: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Variables Examined:◦ Success Rate◦ Withdrawal Rate◦ GPA Converted Grades◦ Units Attempted◦ Units Completed◦ Cum. GPA◦ Assessment Tests (Reading Comp/Sentence Skills/
Math)
CT Differences by Performance Indicators
![Page 24: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
CT Level Number of Students
Mean Units Attempted
Low 446 44.29Medium 962 41.26High 496 44.79*d = .11 - Medium level vs. Low level d = .13 – Medium level vs. High level
CT Differences by Performance Indicators: Units Attempted
![Page 25: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
CT Level Number of Students
Mean Units Earned
Low 446 42.76Medium 962 39.06High 496 42.66*d = .13 for comparisons of Medium level with either Low or High
CT Differences by Performance Indicators: Units Earned
![Page 26: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
CT Level Number of Students
Mean Cum. GPA
Low 446 2.98Medium 962 2.87High 496 2.94*d = .13 - Medium level vs. Low level d = .09 - Medium level vs. Low level
CT Differences by Performance Indicators: Cum. GPA
![Page 27: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Global Awareness
![Page 28: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
GA Level Range PercentileLow 0 – 25 ≤24th PercentileMedium 26 – 28 25-74th PercentileHigh 29 - 30 ≥75th Percentile
Global Awareness: Levels
![Page 29: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Variables Examined:◦ First Generation Status◦ Gender◦ Age Range◦ Parents’ Education◦ Ethnicity◦ UC/CSU Transfer vs. Non-Transferable
GA Differences by Demographics/Course Transfer Status
![Page 30: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
GA Differences by Age Range
GA Level19 or
Younger 20 to 24 25 or Older Total
Low 149 209 96 454Medium 249 384 204 837High 133 265 215 613Total 531 858 515 1904*r = .14
![Page 31: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Variables Examined:◦ Success Rate◦ Withdrawal Rate◦ GPA Converted Grades◦ Units Attempted◦ Units Completed◦ Cum. GPA◦ Assessment Tests (Reading Comp/Sentence Skills/
Math)
GA Differences by Performance Indicators
![Page 32: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
GA Level Number of Students
Mean Units Attempted
Low 454 39.34Medium 837 41.85High 613 46.92*d = .09 – Low vs. Medium d = .27 – Low vs. High d = .17 – Medium vs. High
GA Differences by Performance Indicators: Units Attempted
![Page 33: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
GA Level Number of Students
Mean Units Earned
Low 454 37.37Medium 837 39.76High 613 44.95*d = .09 – Low vs. Medium d = .28 – Low vs. High d = .19 – Medium vs. High
GA Differences by Performance Indicators: Units Earned
![Page 34: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
GA Level Number of Students
Mean Sentence Skills
Low 384 81.73Medium 698 83.98High 497 86.40*d = .11 – Low vs. Medium d = .24 – Low vs. High d = .13 – Medium vs. High
GA Differences by Performance Indicators: Sentence Skills
![Page 35: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Relationship between CT and GA?
Low GA High GA Total
High CT 120 217 334
Low CT 117 66 186
Total 237 283 520
r = .15
![Page 36: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Enhancing institutional effectiveness◦ Self-reflective dialogue
Utilized assessments serve as reliable tools for measuring CT and GA◦ But may not adequately measure all aspects of
corresponding competency More assessment of foundation/online
courses Implications of units attempted/earned &
GPA
Conclusions
![Page 37: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Random sampling for Spring 2013 Inclusion of two additional core
competencies for Spring 2013 Division-wide assessment during Fall 2012 Application to specific course level
assessment First Annual Student Services Poster Session
Institutional Response to Findings
![Page 38: Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070423/56816682550346895dda27a6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Braskamp, L. A., D. C. Braskamp, K. C. Merrill, & M. E. Engberg (2011). Global Perspective Inventory. Global Perspective Institute, Inc., http://gpi.central.edu
Clark, V. (2004). Students’ global awareness and attitudes to internationalism in a world of cultural convergence. Journal of Research in International Education, 3, 51-70.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association (pgs. 13 -19). Newark, DE.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC.
References