Docstoc

linda-final 02-12 Gen Ed Assessment 2010-11 final15-12

Document Sample
linda-final 02-12 Gen Ed Assessment 2010-11 final15-12 Powered By Docstoc
					Report of General Education Assessment
                  2010 - 2011

      General Education Committee 2010 - 2011

       Linda White, Chair - Arts and Communication

            Joey Anderson, Co-Chair - Mathematics
              Brenda Armentrout - Communication
                 Jennifer Arnold – Library Services
                  Debbie Bouton – Learning Unit
       William Brinnier – Behavioral and Social Sciences
                     Jennifer Coble - Science
               Nic Colley - Information Technology
        Allan DiDonato - English, Reading, Humanities
      Catherine Felton – Behavioral and Social Sciences
            Lisa Foley – English, Reading, Humanities
         Carolyn Jacobs – Arts and Communication
                   Helen Kolman - Mathematics
               Jorge Koochoi – Foreign Language
            Holly Maurer – Arts and Communication
                Susan Oleson - President’s Office
                   Erin Payton – Library Services
              Eric Taylor – Business and Accounting
         Gary Walker – English, Reading, Humanities
       Kathryn Wells – Behavioral and Social Sciences

            Terri Manning - Institutional Research
           Denise Wells – Institutional Effectiveness
Contents

General Education Goals and Courses Used for Assessment (2010-2011 Academic Year) ......... 4
General Education Assessment Procedure...................................................................................... 5
2009-2010 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary ....................................... 6
General Education Goal One: Reading .......................................................................................... 8
General Education Goal Two: Communication ........................................................................... 12
   A.        Oral Communication Assessment: ................................................................................. 12
   B.        Written Communication Assessment ............................................................................. 17
General Education Goal Three: Mathematics .............................................................................. 21
General Education Goal Four: Basic Use of Computers ............................................................. 25
General Education Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving ...................................... 30
   A.        COM 231 – Public Speaking.......................................................................................... 30
   B.        ENG 112 – Argument-Based Research .......................................................................... 34
   C.        PSY 150 – General Psychology ..................................................................................... 37
   D.        ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics ..................................................................... 41
General Education Goal Six: Cultural Awareness ....................................................................... 44
   A.        COM 110 – Introduction to Communication ................................................................. 44
   B.        SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II .................................................................................. 48
General Education Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Social Sciences ................................... 51
   A.        HIS 131 – American History I ....................................................................................... 51
   B.        SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology ............................................................................ 54
General Education Goal Eight: Natural Sciences ........................................................................ 57
General Education Goal Nine: Humanities/Fine Arts .................................................................. 61
   A.        ART 111 – Art Appreciation ......................................................................................... 61
   B.        MUS 110 – Music Appreciation .................................................................................... 64
   C.        HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture .............................................................................. 67
General Education Goal Ten: Information Literacy .................................................................... 72
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 76
Goal One: Reading ........................................................................................................................ 77
GOAL TWO: COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................... 78
   A.        Oral Communication ...................................................................................................... 78
   B.        Written Communication ................................................................................................. 80
Goal Three: Mathematics ............................................................................................................. 81
Goal Four: Computer Skills ......................................................................................................... 82
Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving .................................................................... 84
   A.       COM 231 – Public Speaking.......................................................................................... 84
   B.       ENG 112 – Argument Based Research .......................................................................... 85
   C.       PSY 150 – General Psychology ..................................................................................... 86
   D.       ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics ..................................................................... 87
Goal Six: Cultural Awareness .................................................................................................... 88
   A.       COM 110 – Introduction to Communications................................................................ 88
   B.       SPA 112 – INTERMEDIATE SPANISH ...................................................................... 89
Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Science ................................................................................ 93
   A.       HIS 131 – American History.......................................................................................... 93
   B.       SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology ............................................................................ 96
Goal Eight: Natural Sciences ....................................................................................................... 97
Goal Nine: Humanities and Fine Arts ......................................................................................... 98
   A.       ART 111 – Art Appreciation.......................................................................................... 98
   B.       MUS 110 – Music Appreciation .................................................................................... 98
   C.       HUM 130 – Myth in Human Culture ............................................................................. 98
Goal Ten: Information Literacy .................................................................................................. 99
General Education Goals and Courses Used for
Assessment during the 2010-2011 Academic Year

                                                                       Courses
General Ed Goal                                                        assessed
Reading - Students will demonstrate the ability to obtain meaning from RED 090
printed, electronic, and graphic resources.

Communication – Students will effectively communicate both orally and COM 110
in writing. Students will demonstrate the ability to locate, critically COM 231
evaluate, and present information.                                      ENG 111

Mathematics – Students will apply mathematical concepts and skills to MAT 115
analyze, manipulate, and interpret quantitative data.                 MAT 161

Computer Skills – Students will demonstrate the basic computer skills CIS 110
necessary to function in a technological world.                       CIS 111

Critical Thinking / Problem solving – Students will demonstrate the COM 231
ability to identify, analyze, question, and evaluate content as a guide to ENG 112
understanding and action.                                                  PSY 150
                                                                           ECO 251
Cultural Awareness – Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural COM 110
similarities and differences.                                              SPA 112

Social / Behavioral Sciences – Students will demonstrate an HIS131
understanding of social institutions and of the diversity of human SOC210
experiences within a framework of historical and cultural contexts(goal
changed slightly in 2010-2011)


Natural Sciences – Students will demonstrate comprehension of the BIO110
major steps of the scientific method.

Humanities / Fine Arts – Students will demonstrate knowledge of the ART 111
humanities and critical skills in assessing cultural/artistic merit and MUS 111
significance.                                                           HUM 130

Information Literacy - Students will effectively use research techniques   Library
to identify, select, use, document and evaluate information sources        Instruction
appropriate to a particular need (goal added 2010-2011-first pilot).       Classes
General Education Assessment Procedure

       Every fall, the General Education Committee begins the process of creating a general
education portfolio for Central Piedmont Community College. The process is as follows:

1.     In early fall, sections of the appropriate courses by goal area are randomly selected by
       Planning and Research for assessment.

2.     The randomly selected sections are distributed to committee members representing
       academic areas reflected in the general education portfolio and the appropriate division
       directors and deans.

3.     Assessment data are collected by the faculty members assigned to those randomly
       selected sections during the fall term.

4.     Grading is completed in fall for some courses and in spring for others.

5.     Faculty review, discuss results and decide what change, if any, they should make.

6.     Results are examined by the General Education Committee in the spring.

7.     Reports of results are made to the division directors of each unit.


8.     Committee members prepare a written report of assessment results, analysis and
       strategies for improvement. Reports are reviewed by the committee and submitted to
       Planning and Research.

9.     Planning and Research compiles the written reports, assessment materials and student
       samples into a portfolio.

10.    The committee edits the final report.

11.    The report is taken to the Learning Council and the Cabinet.

12.    A response is received from the deans in regard to action items, recommendations,
       budget issues, needs, etc. by September 25th of the following year.
2009-2010 General Education Assessment – Overall Results Summary
     General Ed Goal Area                  Objective                            Result                      Met
Reading      -     Students     will   70% score 70 or       83% of students scored 70 or better
demonstrate the ability to obtain      better                 86% of seated students scored 70 or better
meaning from printed, electronic,                             74% of online students scored 70 or better




                                                                                                            met
and graphical resources.
Oral Communication - Students          70% score 3 of 5 on   86% of students scored 3 or better
will effectively communicate           rubric                  83% of seated students scored 3 or better
orally by demonstrating the                                   98% of online students scored 3 or better
ability to locate, critically
evaluate,        and        present




                                                                                                            met
information.
Written      Communication        –    70% score 2 on all    81% of students met minimum qualification
Students        will    effectively    parts of rubric        82% of seated students scored 3 or better
communicate in writing by                                     77% of online students scored 3 or better




                                                                                                            met
demonstrating the ability to
locate, critically evaluate, and
present information.
Mathematics – Students will            70% score 3 of 5 in   MAT 161 and MAT 115 –
apply mathematical concepts and        3 goal areas          73% of students met all three goal areas
skills to analyze, manipulate, and                           MAT 161 -
                                                               70% of seated students met all three goal




                                                                                                            met
interpret quantitative data.
                                                             areas
                                                               80% of online students met all three goal
                                                             areas
                                                             MAT 115 data not separated
Computer Skills – Students will 80% will score 70            87% of students scored 70% or higher on 2
demonstrate the basic computer (7 of 10 points) or           exams
skills necessary to function in a higher on 2 exams          CIS 110
                                                               74% of seated students scored 70 or higher




                                                                                                            met
technological world.
                                                               90% of online students scored 70 or higher
                                                             CIS 111
                                                               87% of seated students scored 70 or higher
                                                               92% of online students scored 70 or higher
Critical Thinking / Problem solving    COM 231 – 70%         COM 231 – 81% of students scored 3 or better
– Students will demonstrate the        score 3 of 5 on         76% of seated students scored 3 or better
ability to identify, analyze,          rubric                  96% of online students scored 3 or better
question, and evaluate content as
                                       ENG 112 – 70%         ENG 112 – 84% of students scored 3 or better
a guide to understanding and
                                       score 3 of 4 on         84% of seated students scored 3 or better
action.                                rubric                 60% of online students scored 3 or better
                                                                                                            met




                                       PSY 150 - 70% score   PSY150 – 78% of students scored 7 or better
                                       7 or better             80% of seated students scored 7 or better
                                                               75% of seated students scored 7 or better

                                       ECO 251 - 71% of      ECO 251 – 71% of students scored 6 or better
                                       students score 6 or    78% of seated students scored 6 or better
                                       better                 70% of online students scored 6 or better
Cultural Awareness – Students COM 110 - 70% COM 110 – 79% of students scored 7 or more
will demonstrate knowledge of score 7 of 10 points of 10 points
cultural differences.                                79% of seated students scored 7 or better
                                                                75% of online students scored 7 or better




                                                                                                              met
                                       SPA 112 - 70% score    SPA 112 - 85% of students scored 70 or better
                                       70 or better              88% of seated students scored 70 or better
                                                                 79% of online students scored 70 or better
Social / Behavioral Sciences –         70% meet objective     HIS 131 – 77% of students scored 12 or better
Students will demonstrate an           HIS 131 - 12 of 20      77% of seated students scored 12 or better
understanding         of      social   on rubric               77% of online students scored 12 or better
institutions and of the diversity of                          SOC 210 –62% of students scored 2 or higher




                                                                                                              met
                                       SOC 210 - 2 of 3 on    on rubric
human experiences within a
                                       rubric                   57% of seated students scored 2 or better
framework of historical and                                     62% of online students scored 2 or better
cultural contexts.                                            77.3% of both History and Sociology students
                                                              met the benchmark.
Natural Sciences – Students will       70% score 70% or       83% of students scored 70% or higher
demonstrate comprehension of           above                   79% of seated students scored 70 or better
the major steps of the scientific                              88% of online students scored 70 or better




                                                                                                              met
method.
Humanities / Fine Arts – Students      ART 111- 60% score     ART 111 –91% of students scored 7 or better
will demonstrate knowledge of          7 of 10 points          94% of seated students scored 7 or better
the humanities and critical skills                             88% of online students scored 7 or better
in assessing cultural/artistic merit   MUS 110 - 60%          MUS 110 – 73% of students scored 7 or better
                                       score 7 of 10 points    71% of seated students scored 7 or better




                                                                                                              met
and significance.
                                                               91% of online students scored 7 or better

                                       HUM 130 – 70%          HUM 130 -71% of students scored 3 or higher
                                       score 3 of 5 on         70% of seated students scored 3 or better




                                                                                                                        met

                                                                                                                              met
                                       rubric                  72% of online students scored 3 or better
Information Literacy - Students        Pilot results:         63% of students met benchmark
will effectively use research          70% score 6 out of




                                                                                                              Not met
techniques to identify, select, use,   10 or higher
document and evaluate
information sources appropriate
to a particular need.
General Education Goal One: Reading
Students will demonstrate the ability to obtain meaning from printed, electronic, and graphic
resources.

The reading goal was designed to ensure that each student meets a minimal level of
competency in reading comprehension skills. The following objective and means of
assessment were set:

Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal objective for competence in reading
comprehension skills.

Means of assessment: 70% of students will receive at least a score of 70 or better on a
cumulative final exam.

Because reading is not a college level course, those who place in to English 111 on the college
placement test (Accuplacer) are considered adequate readers.

A CPT Reading Placement test score of 80 or above is considered competent in Reading.
However, students who do not complete the reading placement test with a score of 80 or
above are required to take one (in a series of ) reading course(s) before they are allowed to
progress to English 111. Students in this group (referred to developmental courses) will require
further testing to determine competency in reading. The number of students from the fall 2010
with placement tests on file were referred to the following courses (no reading score was
present for 5555 students):

Number                Placement test scores                 Referral to course enrollment
  417(2.06%)          Less than 34                          ABE (adult basic literacy)
2,139 (10.58%)        between 34 and 56                     RED 080 (developmental)
4,539 (22.45%)        between 57 and 79                     RED 090 (developmental)
7,570 (37.44%)        80 or above (college level)           ENG 111 (required college-level)
20,220                Total Students

Reading 090 is a course selected for testing purposes because it is the last developmental
course before students enter college-level coursework. In fall 2010, the following number of
students enrolled in Reading 090:
Term          Number of Sections       Number Enrolled        Course and Number
2010               42                     1020                    RED 090
Name of person completing report: Lisa Foley
Name of Department:
   English, Reading & Humanities
Goal Measured:
   Reading
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
   RED 090

What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100

Please fill in the following information:
    1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 175
    2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 146
    3.    The number in question 2 represents 83% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
Final Exam
What tool did you use?
RED 090 Cumulative Final Exam
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
The RED 090 Cumulative Final Exam consists of both a scantron and an open-ended component. Several out-of-
date questions need to be removed from the scantron portion of the test and replaced with questions that reflect
current course content. Some instructor grading inconsistencies were found in the open-ended portion of the test.
Online
Online assessments lack consistency across the RED online courses. The RED 090-70 Early Childhood online
course's final exam was not a cumulative assessment.
Overall
Adjustments need to be made to both the face-to face and online assessments. The creation of a departmental
answer sheet for the open-ended portion of the final exam would produce greater test reliability.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Students showed greater success with questions that dealt with graphic illustrations and critical thinking skills.
Online
Students showed greatest success with questions that dealt with graphic illustrations.
Overall
Students showed greatest success with questions that dealt with content that was delivered closer to date of the final
exam.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students showed less success with questions that dealt with vocabulary and study system.
Online
Students showed less success with questions that dealt with the study system.
Overall
Students showed less success with the open-ended sections of the final exam (some students did not attempt to
answer either all or whole sections of the open-ended portions of the final exam.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
Students need ongoing review and reinforcement of content throughout the semester. Students need further
explanation and modeling of several steps in the in each of the three stages of the study system.
Online
Students need further explanation and modeling of several steps in each of the three stages of the study system.
Modeled content, via visual and auditory segments, needs to be added to the online classes.
Overall
Students need further explanation and modeling of several steps in each of the three stages of the study system.
Modeled content, via combined visual and auditory segments, needs to be added to the online classes.
.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
Last year's assessment was based on a new textbook/author. Due to weaknesses in the new textbook, the
department returned to the previous textbook/author.
Online
Overall
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Create an answer sheet for the open-ended sections of the final exam. Have instructors create content review
activities throughout the semester.
Online
Have online instructors create and use departmental RED Final Exam (and Unit Tests). Modeled content, via
combined visual and auditory segments, needs to be added to the online classes.
Overall
Create, update, and refine the RED Cumulative Final Exams.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Note: The RED 090-70 Early Childhood section was grant funded. The grant provided for both a RED 090 instructor
and a Blackboard instructor throughout the semester. The class had a cap of 15 students.
Overall
Nine RED 090 classes were used to compile the 2010 report. The instructor for the tenth class had retired and was
unavailable. Beyond the RED assessment tool and student, the Gen Ed process provided greater insight into the
RED090 instructor’s knowledge of content and practices of instruction, and grading.
Assessment Data (includes seated/online/overall classes):
Seated Class Data:
Number of students assessed: 144
Number of students scoring 70 or better: 123
Percentage of Students Meeting Benchmark 85%


Online Class Data:
Number of students assessed: 31
Number of students scoring 70 or better: 23
Percentage of students scoring 70 or better: 74%


Overall Data:
Number of students assessed: 175
Number of students scoring 70 or better: 146
Percentage of students scoring 70 or better: 83%

Note: Complete data is located in the Appendix.



                                      The College Goal for Reading Was Met.
General Education Goal Two: Communication
Students will effectively communicate both orally and in writing. Students will             demonstrate
the ability to locate, critically evaluate, and present information.

(Note: Students are assessed in both Communication and English classes for oral and written
communication skills.)


   A. Oral Communication Assessment:

       Objective:    70% of students will meet minimal objective for effective oral
       presentation.

        Assessment Benchmark:        70% of student speeches evaluated will receive at least a
       score of 3 or better on a 5-point evaluation rubric.

       Two communication courses were selected for the assessment with the following
       enrollments in the fall 2010:

               Term            Number of Sections        Number Enrolled         Course & Number
               Fall 2010            48                      1,172                  COM 110
               Fall 2010            56                      1,363                  COM 231


      Name of person completing report: Brenda Armentrout
      Name of Department:
        Communication
      Goal Measured:
         Oral Communication
      Course(s) in which assessment took place:
        COM 110 & COM 231


      What was the benchmark for this measure?
      70% of students will score a minimum of 3 maximum value of 5

      Please fill in the following information:
          1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 134
          2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 115
          3.   The number in question 2 represents 86% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Fall 2010 – Twenty sections of COM 110 and COM 231 were randomly selected by Planning and Research for
CPCC’s General Education Oral Communication assessment. The selected sections include classes taught by
full-time and part-time Communication faculty, traditional and distance learning sections (online and teleweb), and
sections offered at various campuses.
A standard assignment for all students in these two courses is to prepare and deliver speeches (Informative
speeches in COM 110 and persuasive speeches in COM 231). The instructors of the sections selected for GEN
ED assessment are given standardized directions for the recording of student speeches and for the return of the
recordings to the designated person. The management of the COM 110 and COM 231 GEN ED Oral
Communication Assessment process is the responsibility of the full-time Communication faculty member serving
on the College General Education Committee.

Spring 2011 - The faculty member responsible for GEN ED Oral Communication Assessment randomly
distributes the recorded student speeches to full-time Communication faculty to review. These are blind reviews
and are completed using a standard oral communication rubric (see attachment) developed and tested by
Communication faculty.
 A summary of the benchmark items of the rubric include:
Students demonstrate adequate oral communication skills by including all or almost all of the following according
to the oral communication rubric:(see attached)
•An attention-getting introduction that orients the audience to the subject and motivates the audience to listen,
•Well-developed points with transitions and internal summaries; content should reflect excellent research and
appropriate citation of sources; focused, logical and coherent development of information; use of vivid, accurate
language; good use of repetition to reinforce key ideas, establish speaker credibility
•Use of vocal variety in rate, pitch and volume in order to maintain and heighten audience interest; effective
pronunciation and articulation; lacks inarticulates
•Confident physical stance; eye contact addresses the entire audience; complementary gestures that
demonstrate enthusiasm
•When used, well-chosen visual aid(s) that effectively complement the presentation. PowerPoint is the
recommended visual aid.
•Use of extemporaneous style, effective use of notes; well-polished delivery
•A conclusion that restates the central idea; summarizes main points; and uses an effective concluding statement
which motivates the audience.
What tool did you use?
Collection of student speeches from Fall 2010 COM 110 and COM 231 sections (samples provided to Planning
and Research)
Oral Communication Rubric for COM 110 and COM 231 speech assessments (see attachment 1)
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Online
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Overall
Communication faculty is basically satisfied with the process of assessment. The faculty continues to have
concerns with the actual recording of speeches. Audio and visual recordings are sometimes sub-standard and
difficulty to assess. This is partly due to the limitations of the camera audio and partly due to the operation and
placement of cameras. Communication has purchased several new digital cameras, but audio pick-up of
speeches is still limited. If resources allow, the purchase of wireless microphones for student speakers may
resolve this problem. Faculty recommendations include having class instructors review recorded speeches prior
to submitting to ensure that recording has occurred and is viewable, providing instructions and training for all
COM faculty with recommendations for lighting and audio placements for student speakers and appropriate video
inclusion of visuals/PowerPoint. Another suggestion is that COM classes have designated speaking areas with
built-in recording equipment.
Note: The COM full time faculty completed a reliability check in 2008-09 and 2009-2010, using student speeches
and the rubric as the tool for assessment.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Faculty noted that most students had developed introductions and effective transitions. Appropriate mode of
delivery and organization was used. Students had appropriate topic selection and used time effectively. Use of
PowerPoint in the speeches has increased and has improved. Students effectively use research and oral cites to
support points of speech.
Online
Appropriate selection of topics for assignment; students communicated positive orientation/connection to topic.
Demonstrated understanding of development of argument and appropriate organization patterns. Research was
appropriate and oral cites were integrated. Good delivery; effective use of nonverbals. Time was used
productively. Effective use of PowerPoint to enhance interest and understanding of information.
Overall
Similar strengths noted in both groups. Consistency in assignments and assessments is stressed by COM
faculty for both online and face-to-face sections. Online COM students tend to have higher speech scores. This
may be due to priority registration recently implemented by College. COM 110 and COM 231 Online sections are
high demand classes for advanced students.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students have difficulty with previewing main points of speech in introduction and are sometimes ineffective with
use of oral cites. While most students strive for extemporaneous mode of delivery, there is still over-dependency
on notes or reading from PowerPoint by some students, resulting in limited eye contact and a fast rate of speech.
Conclusions often have weak closings.
Online
Some speeches needed more development for introductions, especially use of effective attention-getters, and
stronger transitions between main points. Need to improve use of sources and oral citations; less reliance on
websites. Limit focus on PowerPoint and have less reliance on notes.
Overall
Online speeches and face-to-face were similar in weaknesses. Students often enter the class with limited
research and organization skills and many students have to overcome high anxiety of public speaking.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
There seems to be a wider range (1-5) of oral communication skills (as measured by the rubric) represented in
the recorded student speeches in face-to-face classes. The reasons for this will need to be explored.
Possibilities include more diverse student population and students who have not successfully completed
Advancement Studies courses. Beginning Summer 2011, all students registering for COM 110 and COM 231 will
have completed ENG and Reading Advancement Studies courses or have placed into ENG 111.
Online
The comparison of online and face-to-face course assessment pointed out the online students are doing as well
or better in their oral communication assignments. This may be attributed to consistency in assignments between
the two delivery types and to the student population given permission for early registration; these are typically
motivated students who have successfully completed a year of college. Online students may also withdraw
earlier from classes they are not doing well in, leaving the more successful students in the recorded speech
group. Further exploration is needed.
Overall
The COM faculty acknowledges the challenges that these courses and assignments present to our students.
However, the majority of the students do succeed in these two classes by demonstrating abilities to research,
organize, develop and integrate information into presentations with the assistance of technology and use effective
verbal and nonverbal skills in their communication and to evaluate critically the information being processed and
delivered.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
As a result of these assessments, the COM faculty learned that there are some distinctive differences between
the COM 110 speeches and the COM 231 speeches. The COM 231 speeches are more fully developed and the
students appear to be more confident and skilled in the delivery of their speeches. This was evident in both face-
to-face and online student speeches. This may be attributed to the focus of public speaking in COM 231, while
COM 110 is a survey course covering numerous communication topics, allowing for fewer public speaking
assignments. In addition, the COM 231 assessed speech is the third prepared speech and the COM 110 speech
is the second speech assigned to students.
Online
In 2009-2010, the COM assessment compared online student scores to classroom student scores. Total number
of students assessed for oral communication was 119. 76% of assessed students in classroom made
benchmark; 83% of assessed students in online classes made benchmark. Collection of additional data in 2010-
11 determined this is a consistent pattern of success between the two groups. . Com faculty need to explore the
reasons for the higher score of online speech assessments and compare to student % of successful completion
in online courses versus face-to-face student successful completion.
Overall
A factor in improved 2010-2011 scores may be the improved communication to students of withdrawal dates.
The students not doing well may have already withdrew (or stopped attending) at the point the speeches are
collected.
Reviewer's comments confirm last year's concerns related to the recording and technology issues. These
concerns should be resolved as technology options improve.
It was agreed that general education and best practices workshops and instructional resources are effective in
enhancing student success in the COM classes and should be provided to all COM instructors, especially to part-
time faculty.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Encourage faculty to visit other instructor's classes; request smart classrooms for COM classes
Online
Encourage faculty to complete training for new version of Blackboard; explore certification for COM online
classes
Overall
Recommendations : Revise/update COM Booklets, Continue Gen Ed workshops; COM chairs will work closely
with new faculty to ensure they have information and resources to be successful in their teaching, offer Best
Practices for Teaching Communication workshops, request PowerPoint and smart classroom workshops for COM
classes, share rubric with part time faculty; intranet site for part time and full time faculty, support mentor program
for part time COM faculty; share results of Gen Ed purpose, process and results with all COM faculty, encourage
more classroom observation between COM faculty. Encourage all PT COM faculty to complete new Blackboard
training and other learning/training opportunities offered by the College, encourage PT faculty to participate in
appropriate Division and Discipline meetings. Assess "embedded librarian" project to determine if appropriate for
all COM classes, review /revise research assignment and methods.
It is critical that part-time instructors be aware of the goals and objectives of the COM courses. It is also
important that faculty understand the process and role GEN ED Assessment has in reviewing and improving the
COM courses to enhance student success. .
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
N/A
Online
N/A
Overall
A new textbook for COM 110 (adopted Fall 2010) may have had some effect on COM 110 scores as instructors
were not familiar with the text.
Note: Three sections of selected sections of COM 110 speeches were not assessed due to technical malfunction
with two sections and one section was lost in campus mail. Arrangements had been made in the fall for two full-
time instructors to record extra sections as back-ups; these sections were used to substitute for the three
unavailable sections.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):

SEATED CLASSES Results
Number of speeches assessed: 103
        COM 110- 54 speeches assessed
        COM 231- 49 speeches assessed
Number of students scoring 3 or better: 85
        COM 110 – 41 (75.93%)
        COM 231 – 44 (89.80%)
Percentage of students scoring 3 or better: 82.53%

DISTANCE LEARNING Results
Number of speeches assessed: 31
       COM 110 – 12 speeches assessed
       COM 231 – 19 speeches assessed

Number of students scoring 3 or better: 30
        COM 110 – 11 (91.67%)
        COM 231 – 19 (100%)
Percentage of students scoring 3 or higher: 96.77%

OVERALL Results
Number of speeches assessed: 134
        COM 110             66
        COM 231            68
Number of students scoring 3 or higher: 115
        COM 110             52
        COM 231             63
Percentage of students scoring 3 or higher: 85.82% (134 Speeches)

Note: All online COM 110 and COM 231 sections are currently taught by full-time COM faculty.
Note: Complete data is located in the Appendix.



                                    The Oral Communication Goal Was Met.
B. Written Communication Assessment

   The requirement of the English 111 course for students is designed to assure that each
   student meets a minimal level of competence in writing. For this reason, faculty set the
   following objective:

   Objective:        70% of students will be able to communicate effectively in writing.

   Means of assessment:           70% of students will complete the writing exam with a passing
         grade.

   One English course was selected for the assessment and the enrollments in fall 2010
   were as follows:

   Term              Number of Sections           Number Enrolled               Course & Number
   Fall 2010              91                          2,233                         ENG 111

Name of person completing report: Gary Walker
Name of Department:
  English, Reading & Humanities
Goal Measured:
  Written Communication
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
  ENG 111

What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 4 maximum value of 4

Please fill in the following information:
    1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 176
    2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 143
    3.   The number in question 2 represents 81% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
In order to measure objectives and student outcomes, students were required to choose one of the topics listed
below and write one complete paragraph. Students were expected to include prewriting, drafting, and revising of the
paragraph. The paragraph was to be reflective of their level of writing and include a topic sentence, supporting
details, and an appropriate closing.
What tool did you use?
Students chose one of these topics:
 1. Describe a risk that paid off.
2. What do you believe is the main purpose for obtaining a college education?
3. Explain or tell about a career that suits you best.

The following Grading Rubric was used to evaluate each paragraph:
Yes       No
__        ___     The paragraph has an appropriate topic sentence
___       ___     The paragraph stays on one topic that is stated in the topic sentence.
 ___      ___     The paragraph meets standards of correctness.
___       ___     The paragraph has supporting sentences that gave reasons/details/facts
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
It is an acceptable measure of extemporaneous paragraph writing ability. In other words, it’s fine for what it does, but
limited.
Online
Some instructors teach timed writing as an important real-world skill, not all ENG 111 instructors do; therefore, writing
within a short burst (around 30 minutes completion time for this assignment) will yield different results than untimed
writing assignments that are more typical of our course. Time factor is not controlled online.
Overall
The assessment can demonstrate a student's ability to create a focused response for a writing context that includes
a clear main point; concrete, logical, and related supporting ideas; and fluid, grammatically correct expression in
English. Students range from strong to poor in these areas.
The assessment doesn’t measure products of the writing process, or authentic writing, or learning itself (but only
takes a snapshot of ability), and is a single measure. Multiple measures are always preferable.
A better picture of student learning would involve two changes: first, a before and after picture to measure learning,
not ability; second, a more realistic assessment of student writing, beyond extemporaneous personal essay writing.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Development of process in producing the response. Most students used the assigned time for invention, drafting and
revising.
Online
Less process oriented but demonstrated an ability to create a focused response. These students "may" be those who
already know they are highly skilled taking the online route for a quicker experience.
Overall
Strengths: simplicity, clarity, extemporaneous grammar production, basic paragraph structure, supporting
information.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students don’t have real-world editing and proofreading devices, such as checkers to aid them in this situation as
they do in online responses.
Online
Students engage and commit less online. There tends to be a greater disparity between exemplary and below
average writers in online courses. There also seems to be more attrition in online courses.
Overall
There were two areas that lead to lower scores: (1) while understanding the concept, topic sentences lacked focus
and specificity; and (2) paragraph unity was an issue in that some responses incorporated related ideas that
weakened focus.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
CPCC is getting more transfer students, younger students, more female students, more online students, and more
graduates. Several instructors noted a greater number of EFL students and a significant increase of non-traditional
students.
Online
The gap has widened. We have some very strong student who cannot afford more competitive colleges that they
might have attended previously. Some students are arriving from high school poorly prepared especially in oral and
written communication. This is true overall, but while online students once only took online courses in areas of
strength, a wider range of students choose to take online courses.
Overall
Students have an understanding on the concept of paragraph construction as the basis for an extended essay, but
may lack focused, sophisticated development in many cases.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
Some of the same issues persist, but students demonstrate a continued understanding of the elements of
construction.
Online
Online students, at least on the assessment, are no less proficient, but don't write as much, don't develop ideas as
much, and possible don't invest as much time as face-to-face students.
Overall
Students understand writing foundations, but need to be developed more sophisticated responses.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Online
Explore ways to engage students in process.
Overall
Tie every assignment to a kind of communication or writing students will actually face in future classes, in work, and
in life. Then teach the skills that support those assignments (stop teaching disembodied skills like the modes and
personal essays).
Spend more time on diagnostic tools, such as the Compclass Diagnostic Grammar Assessment, and offer a range of
support for varied problem areas. We can tailor more assignments so that they require writing in a particular context,
such as problem-solution writing for a given scenario.
Create opportunities to share best practices would help all instructors improve.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
If we think more about the purpose for the writing, we will think more about the purpose for the writing assignment.
We should also commit to the writing process, since that is how “real” writers write, through revision and publication
(presenting real documents). Nobody write five paragraph essays in real life, and few people write personal essays.

While there is no significant statistical difference in the scores even though overall success rates for online Eng 111
classes are lower. Further study is needed to be able to draw conclusions about the reasons for this difference.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
SEATED CLASS Results
   Number of students assessed: 154
   Number of students meeting assessment: 126
   Percentage of students meeting assessment: 82%

   ONLINE CLASS Results
   Number of students assessed: 22
   Number of students meeting assessment: 17
   Percentage of students meeting assessment: 77%



   OVERALL Results:
   Number of students assessed: 176
   Number of students meeting assessment: 143
   Percentage of students meeting assessment: 81%



The Written Communication Goal Was Met.


                        The College Goal for Communication Was Met.
General Education Goal Three: Mathematics
Students will apply mathematical concepts and skills to analyze, manipulate, and interpret
quantitative data.

          Math faculty determined that the skills necessary to meet the above goal are:
          1.     The ability to analyze quantitative data
          2.     The ability to manipulate quantitative data
          3.     The ability the interpret quantitative data

Therefore, the following objective was set for the purpose of general education assessment:

Objective:       70% of those taking the final exam will show mastery of all three goals.

Means of Assessment: 70% of those taking the final exam will correctly answer three of five
questions on each of the three goal areas.

Two math courses were selected for the assessment and their enrollments for the fall 2010
were as follows:

Term             Number of Sections        Number Enrolled          Course & Number
Fall 2010               9                       250                     MAT 115
Fall 2010              37                     1,144                     MAT 161


Name of person completing report: Helen Kolman
Name of Department:
  Mathematics
Goal Measured:
  Mathematics
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
  MAT 115
& MAT 161
What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70 for each of parts of goal maximum value of 70

Please fill in the following information:
    1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 403
    2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 295
    3.    The number in question 2 represents 73% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
Testing
What tool did you use?
15 mulitple choice questions on Final Exam
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
The mathematics faculty see the general education questions as a reasonable cross section of the competencies for
the courses and agree that the questions appropriately asses the specified goal. In addition, mastery of the general
education goal strongly correlates to mastery of the course goals and a passing grade.
Online
Same as face-to-face.
Overall
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
The Mathematics goal is a three part goal. The first part requires that the students successfully analyze quantitative
data given in various formats-verbal, graphical and symbolic. The students showed the greatest strength in this part of
the assessment.
The second part of the goal requires that the students successfully manipulate quantitative data using the symbolic
tools of the course. The students also demonstrated strength in this area.
In general, the students excelled at those questions requiring direct application or computation.
Online
Same as face-to-face

What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
The third part of the goal requires that the students interpret quantitative data. This portion of the goal is the most
complex and again has the lowest percentage of students demonstrating mastery. The students find the synthesis of
the analytic tool with the real world applications the most challenging portion of the assessment.
Piecewise functions in the college algebra area and personal finance in the mathematical models course was singled
out as topics of concern for many students.
Some students did not have a clear understanding of the relationship of the characteristics of a function graph to the
characteristic of the function equation.
In general, the higher order thinking required to answer the questions in this section is difficult for some students.
Online
In general -the same as face to face..
Overall
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
In addition to the conclusions concerning strengths and weaknesses (students are strong in concrete, calculation
tasks but more challenged with abstract concepts and interpretation of a mathematical construct in an applied setting)
Several observations were made.
Delay between developmental and college level work has a negative impact on student success.
Some students do not understand the role of the calculator in the college level class - valuable tool - not answer
generator.
Online
 In addition to the face -to-face issues, the online students face the additional challenge of recognizing the need to
spend an appropriate amount of time studying for the class.
Since there is no class meeting, time must be allotted for instructional activities -videos , reading, formative
assessments etc.
Overall
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
The strengths and weaknesses lie in the same areas but we believe this is related to the increasing complex nature of
the 3 part goal.
Online
Same as face to face.
Overall
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Learning in context will again be emphasized. Faculty will continue to focus on strategies dedicated to improving the
students’ mastery of the most complex part of the general education goal. Higher level thinking will be emphasized
throughout the semester.
Instructors will focus on maintaining a balance between the calculator and the analytic process as solution methods.
Instructors will emphasize the integration between the characteristics of the graph and the characteristics of the
function equation.


Online
In additions to focus above, online instructors will
1. Emphasize importance of weekly time allotment to the course.
2. The panopto software will be used to create videos in response to "concepts of concern" as identified by weekly
student assessments.
3. Videos will be available to all instructors.


Overall
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
MAT 161
SEATED CLASS Results
Number of students assessed: 192
Number of students meeting each of the three goals: 135
Percentage of students meeting each of the three goals: 70%
ONLINE CLASS Results
Number of students assessed: 15
Number of students meeting assessment: 12
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 80%

MAT 161 Overall Results:
Number of students assessed: 207
Number of students meeting each of the three goals: 147
Percentage of students meeting each of the three goals: 71%


OVERALL RESULTS
Number of students assessed: 403
Number of students meeting assessment: 295
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 73%
General Education Goal Four: Basic Use of Computers
Students will demonstrate the basic computer skills necessary to function in a technological
world.

To measure the goal, the following objective was set:

Objective:    80% of students enrolling in CIS 110 or CIS 111 will score a 70% or higher on the
              combined scores for the first two in-course exams, though in this assessment
              only CIS 110 classes were examined.

Assessment tool used: The CIS faculty determined that basic computer skills involved the
following computer operations:

      start and shut down
      using Windows OS
      how to work with desktop
       (Windows - sizing/moving, opening/closing icons & menus
      disk formatting
      file copying/deleting/moving
      creating folders
      start/close applications
      use a word processor
      terminology (hardware and software)
      computer components

All degree-seeking students must take either CIS 110 (college transfer programs) or CIS 111
(applied science programs). Both of these courses require that students pass five exams plus
other course work to pass the course. The 1st exam is 100% multiple choice-T/F. The 2nd is
100% hands-on, skill-based testing. The CIS faculty determined that "demonstrating basic
computer skills" would be satisfied by the 80% of students who complete both tests and made
a 70% or above. Enrollments in these courses are very heavy. During the fall 2010 term, the
following numbers enrolled in CIS110:

Term          Number of Sections      Number Enrolled       Course & Number
Fall 2010          60                    2,029            CIS 110
Fall 2010          19                      603                    CIS 111
Name of person completing report: Nic Colley
Name of Department:
   Information Technology
Goal Measured:
  Computer Skills
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
  CIS 110
&CIS 111
What was the benchmark for this measure?
80% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100

Please fill in the following information:
      1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 440
      2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 382
      3.   The number in question 2 represents 87% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
start and shut down
•        using Windows OS
•        how to work with desktop
(Windows - sizing/moving, opening/closing icons & menus
•        disk formatting
•        file copying/deleting/moving
•        creating folders
•        start/close applications
•        use a word processor
•        terminology (hardware and software)
•        computer components
What tool did you use?
         For CIS110, My IT Lab was used. For CIS 111, SAM was used. My IT Lab is a LMS that has standardized
tests and simulation tests built in where SAM just has the simulation testing. In both classes a multiple choice and
T/F test was used.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
N/A
Online
N/A
Overall
Identical sections as the content is from the same master. No real difference observed. Full time instructors are the
only ones that teach online.
A lot of faculty like both My IT Lab and SAM. Some instructors only use My IT Lab for the content and use
Blackboard where others use all of My It Lab's functionality. My It Lab students have training tutorials and audio
lectures that mirror projects from the book. These resources are available to students before labs are assigned.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Students have direct access to their instructor. Able to get questions answered.
Online
More self motivated students and have a higher completion rate with assignments and submissions are on time.
Higher aptitude with computers.
Overall
Basic skills, reading & math, are higher due to pre-reqs. The younger generation that is coming through has a
strong knowledge of computer usage.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Computer skills generally weaker
Online
Lack of self motivation and willingness to read to complete the assignments. Think the class will be easier as it is
online.
Overall
Older students are generally weaker with computer skills as they rarely use computers.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
Pre-reqs worked. More students are coming into these classes with better math, reading, and English skills.
Online
Pre-reqs worked. More students are coming into these classes with better math, reading, and English skills.
Overall
Pre-reqs worked. More students are coming into these classes with better math, reading, and English skills.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
That the pre-reqs really helped the students achieve the goals of the class.
Online
That the pre-reqs really helped the students achieve the goals of the class.
Overall
That the pre-reqs really helped the students achieve the goals of the class.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Next year both CIS classes will be moving to Office 2010 and Windows 7. With this switch, there will be
improvements made to exams and the interfaces to the simulations. Blackboard will also be the main LMS for the
course.
Online
Next year both CIS classes will be moving to Office 2010 and Windows 7. With this switch, there will be
improvements made to exams and the interfaces to the simulations. Blackboard will also be the main LMS for the
course.
Overall
Next year both CIS classes will be moving to Office 2010 and Windows 7. With this switch, there will be
improvements made to exams and the interfaces to the simulations. Blackboard will also be the main LMS for the
course.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
N/A
Online
N/A
Overall
Pre-reqs are: Math 070, Reading 080, and Eng 080 were added to CIS 110 and CIS 111 in summer 2010.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
                 CIS 110 - Seated Sections

 Sectio        Teaching        Total      # Passing       % Passing
 n             Method         Tested     Benchmark       Benchmark
 110-
 55        seated                  23              16         69.6%
 110-
 26        seated                  27              19         70.4%
 110-
 44        seated                  22              18         81.8%
 110-
 05        seated                  18              14         77.8%
 110-
 34        seated                  25              22         88.0%
      0    Total - Online          90              67         74.4%


                    CIS 110 - Online Sections
                                        # Passing
 Sectio      Teaching         Total     Benchmar         % Passing
 n           Method          Tested         k           Benchmark
 110-
 88       online                  99            95           96.0%
 110-
 84       online                108             92           85.2%




          Total - Online        207            187           90.3%
                     CIS 111 - seated sections

Sectio      Teaching          Total     # Passing        % Passing
n           Method           Tested    Benchmark        Benchmark
111-
09       seated                   23              20         87.0%
111-
40       seated                   21              18         85.7%
         Total - Seated           44              38         86.4%

                     CIS 111 - seated sections
                                       # Passing
Sectio   Teaching            Total     Benchmar         % Passing
n         Method            Tested         k           Benchmark
111-
88     online                    74              68         91.9%

         Total - Seated          74              68         91.9%

                CIS 110 & 111 - All Sections
Sectio     Teaching      Total      # Passing            % Passing
   n       Method       Tested Benchmark                Benchmark
110-
55       seated                  23               16         69.6%
110-
26       seated                  27               19         70.4%
111-
09       seated                  23               20         87.0%
110-
44       seated                  22               18         81.8%
111-
40       seated                  21               18         85.7%
110-
05       seated                  18               14         77.8%
110-
88       online                  99               95         96.0%
110-
84       online                108                92         85.2%
111-
88       online                  74               68         91.9%
110-
34       seated                 25                22         88.0%
         Total All             440               382         86.8%
                  The College Met the Basic Use of Computers Goal.
General Education Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Students will demonstrate the ability to identify, analyze, question, and evaluate content as a
guide to understanding and action.

Efforts this year toward assessments of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving have been
completed in multiple courses:

Critical thinking assessments were conducted in COM 231, ENG 112, PSY 150 and ECO 251.

During the fall 2009 term, course enrollments for COM 231, ENG 112, PSY 150 ECO 251 were as
follows:
Term            Number of Sections     Number Enrolled      Course & Number
Fall 2010              56                  1,363                COM 231
Fall 2010              37                    903                ENG 112
Fall 2010              44                  1,368                PSY 150
Fall 2010              13                    340                ECO 251

Objective:      70% of students will meet minimal standard set for Critical Thinking.


    A. COM 231 – Public Speaking

         To measure the goal, the following objective was set:

         Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal standards for Critical Thinking using the
         student’s persuasion speech as the basis for assessment.
Name of person completing report: Brenda Armentrout
Name of Department:
  Communication
Goal Measured:
  Critical Thinking/Problem
Solving
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
  COM 231

What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 3 maximum value of 5

Please fill in the following information:
    1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 68
    2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 55
    3.   The number in question 2 represents 81% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Fall 2010 - Planning and Research randomly selected ten sections of COM 231 sections for critical thinking
assessment. Students in all sections of COM 231 are given the required assignment to prepare and deliver
persuasive speeches. The selected sections include classes taught by full-time and part-time Communication faculty,
traditional and distance learning sections (online and teleweb), and sections offered at various campuses.
The instructors of the sections selected for GEN ED assessment are given standardized directions for the recording of
student speeches and for the return of the recordings to the designated person. The management of the COM 231
GEN ED Critical Thinking Assessment process is the responsibility of the full-time Communication faculty member
serving on the College General Education Committee. The student speeches in the selected sections were recorded
and reviewed by full time Communication faculty in a blind review, randomly assigned process. A student
demonstrate critical thinking in a persuasive speech by consistently doing all or almost all of the following according
to the critical thinking rubric:(Complete rubric is attached in Appendix to the General Education Report..
Does most or many of the following:
•          Restates or reviews evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
•          Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
•          Superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view.
•          Justifies some results with limited explanation.
What tool did you use?
Collection of student persuasive speeches from Fall 2010 COM 231 sections (samples provided to Planning and
Research)
Critical Thinking Rubric for COM 231 speech assessments
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Online
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Overall
Communication faculty is basically satisfied with the process of assessment. Since the primary source for
assessment is student speeches, the faculty continues to have concerns with the actual recording of the speeches.
Audio and visual recordings are sometimes sub-standard and difficulty to assess. This is partly due to the limitations
of the camera audio and partly due to the operation and placement of cameras. Communication has purchased
several new digital cameras, but audio pick-up of speeches is still limited. If resources allow, the purchase of wireless
microphones for student speakers may resolve this problem. Faculty recommendations include having class
instructors review recorded speeches prior to submitting to ensure that recording has occurred and is viewable,
providing instructions and training for all COM faculty with recommendations for lighting and audio placements for
student speakers and appropriate video inclusion of visuals/PowerPoint. Another suggestion is that COM classes
have designated speaking areas with built-in recording equipment.

The CT rubric was modified last year to cover persuasive organizational patterns other than Monroe's Motivational
Sequence. COM faculty will review the CT rubric Fall, 2011, and revise if needed. If revised, the COM full time faculty
will complete a reliability check Fall 2011 to ensure reliability of the assessment tool.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Students selected appropriate topics for persuasive speeches and research was used effectively to enhance speaker
credibility and as evidence to support positions. Good development of problem-solution process.
Online
Students used effective organizational patterns for persuasive speeches, most commonly used are problem-solution
or motivational sequence. Topics were appropriate for persuasive speeches and often focused on timely issues.
Research and critical thinking skills were evident in the selection of evidence and accurate interpretation of research
presented in the speeches. Visuals (PowerPoint slides) supported evidence used in speeches.
Overall
Students demonstrate willingness to use appropriate research and supporting evidence for persuasive speeches.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students often made sweeping generalizations and did not always present alternative points of view, even when two-
sided argument would have enhanced persuasive nature of speech.
Online
One-sided arguments sometimes used when two-sided argument would have had more impact.
Overall
Students struggle with complex thinking and organizational skills needed for this assignment. Often ignore or do not
adequate develop alternative viewpoints.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Online
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Overall
Problems and solutions presented in student speeches are sometimes superficial. Students do not always anticipate
or address audience resistance or alternative views to those presented in their speeches. The critical thinking skills
required for this assessment are fairly complex and often difficult for students who have not had previous experiences
with discussing controversial topics. Students are sometimes uncomfortable to address issues from different
viewpoints in their speeches; express concerns that other students might be upset or feel it will weaken their
argument.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
Students continue to struggle with using critical thinking strategies as foundation for persuasive speeches.
Appropriate organization is usually selected, but the analysis and evaluation of alternative points of view or counter-
arguments are sometimes minimal and/or superficial.
Online
Critical Thinking assessment for COM 231 online students versus face-to-face students were not calculated for 2009-
2010.
However, the Critical Thinking assessment indicates that COM 231 online students (online and teleweb) do well in this
category. Online 95% of students met benchmark. 76% of face-to-face students met the benchmark.
Overall
The COM faculty recognize that Public Speaking courses are often a challenge for students who have minimal
research and organizational skills and that many students also experience high levels of public speaking anxiety. In
addition, the development and oral presentation of a persuasive argument is a complex process that many students
are undertaking for the first time in their public speaking class. Instructors need to provide the tools and the
classroom support for preparing students for this assignment.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Online
See Overall - No differences between face-to-face and online.
Overall
Review and revise critical thinking rubric; review/revise COM 231 Booklet to include information sample speech
outlines reflecting critical thinking strategies; have instructors use recorded persuasive speeches to demonstrate to
students different levels of critical thinking;; incorporate critical thinking teaching and assessment strategies into GEN
ED workshops and Best Teaching Practices workshops; encourage part-time faculty to attend and participate in
workshops. Students need to be encouraged/motivated to critically read the textbook chapters covering "Speaking to
Persuade” and "Methods of Persuasion".
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
None
Online
None
Overall
Beginning Summer 2011, COM 231 will have pre-requisites. Students will be required to have successful completed
Advancement Studies Reading and English courses or have placed into ENG 111. This may enhance the readiness
of COM 231 students to successfully demonstrate advanced critical thinking assignments such as a researched
persuasive speech.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
(Data breakdown by data is attached)


SEATED CLASSES Results:
Number of student speeches assessed; 49
Number of student speeches scoring 3 or better: 37
Percentage of student speeches scoring 3 or better: 75.51%

DISTANCE LEARNING Results:
(Teleweb and online)
Number of student speeches assessed: 19
Number student speeches scoring 3 or better: 18
Percentage of student speeches scoring 3 or better: 94.74%


OVERALL Results:
Number of student speeches assessed: 62
Number of student speeches scoring 3 or better: 46
Percentage of student speeches scoring 3 or better: 74

Note: All online COM 231 sections are currently taught by full-time COM faculty
   B. ENG 112 – Argument-Based Research

   Objective: 70% of students will meet minimal standards for Critical Thinking using student
essays as the basis for assessment.

     Name of person completing report: James Kirkpatrick
     Name of Department:
        English, Reading & Humanities
     Goal Measured:
       Critical Thinking/Problem
     Solving
     Course(s) in which assessment took place:
        ENG 112

     What was the benchmark for this measure?
     70% of students will score a minimum of 2 maximum value of 3

     Please fill in the following information:
         1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 153
         2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 113
         3.    The number in question 2 represents 75% of students meeting the benchmark.

     What method of assessment did you use?
     Argument essay assignment
     What tool did you use?
     Critical Thinking Rubric
     What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
     Face-to-face
     The critical thinking rubric used has fifteen pieces. Simplification is needed.
     Online
     Question: Are we focusing enough on just critical thinking assessment?
     Overall
     For both face-to-face and online classes, the assessment tool must focus only on critical thinking. The current tool
     may be too broad and we need to consider creating an assignment that focuses only on critical thinking to get a
     clearer picture of a student’s ability to think critically.


     What student strengths were observed?
     Face-to-face
     Working with the thesis (the claim); understanding the fundamental stand in a position; identifying at least two sides
     to an issue.
     Online
     The majority are coming in more and more prepared with the MLA citation (probably because of the need for one
     research paper in ENG 111). The greatest strength seen is that they are more open to writing about varying issues,
     not the old, boring ones that have been done a million times (death penalty, abortion, etc.). Online 112 students
seem to enjoy writing about local issues and show passion for those issues in their papers. The analysis of scholarly
sources is also getting better (than compared to the past). Cases of plagiarism seem fewer in online courses,
perhaps due to SafeAssign, Blackboard's plagiarism detection tool.
Overall
Some strengths we continue to observe in our students is the ability to define issues, to understand the premise of
argument, including the creation of a claim, and to be aware of multiple perspectives on an issue or problem.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students struggle with using logical construction, with understanding the complexity of evaluating the position they
stake out in an argument, and with incorporating analysis into an argument.
Online
Students still have trouble seeing beyond pro/con concepts in issues. We try to push them to explore the varying
sides of issues, but they still stick with the "for/against" mentality. Also, there has been a growing trend in online 112
students that they feel they are asked to write too much. Many have trouble producing longer papers (beyond two-
three pages). Also, it is disheartening to still see students at this level who are making basic mistakes in writing
(subject/verb disagreement, etc.).
Overall
Students struggle with pro/con concepts in issues; with self-evaluation of their own positions.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
Some students’ ability to demonstrate critical thinking is limited by their lack of fluency in writing. We need to
consider how to address this issue as well, apart from the assessment.
Online
Surprisingly, it seems like online students are using more and more resources than the in-class students (such as
using the library databases instead of just Googling for research; visiting the Writing Center often). After using the
assessment, it does seem to me that online students have a tendency to write about more local issues versus in-
class students.
Overall
Students struggle with the multiple demands of Eng 112. ENG 112 requires exploring and developing content,
research, and documentation. This requires so much attention that critical thinking can become lost in the overall
process.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
A continuing issue of students seeing various nuances within an argument position.
Online
Certain strengths (such as using resources) were clearer.
Overall
Similar to last year, some students still resort to pro/con thinking and resulting arguments were very basic in nature.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Review the assessment assignment. Make sure that instructors are on the same page when using the assessment
tool.
Online
Consider using the embedded librarian feature. This certainly helps students as far as understanding what type of
research is expected in the class and where to find it. Encourage online instructors to begin use Wikis, blogs, etc. a
lot more to facilitate class discussion, possibly even putting them in groups. Online students definitely feel "alone" the
majority of the time, and the crux of ENG 112 is that all-important discussion about issues.
Overall
The two areas in ENG 112 writing that reflect critical thinking at its most are (1) exploring and defending multiple
perspectives in argument and (2) questioning assumptions as part of the argument. These two specific areas could
be incorporated more comprehensively into instruction and serve as the focus for assessment.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face

Online

Overall

Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
               English 112 - seated sections
                Teaching         Total      # Passing        % Passing
 Section        Method          Tested     Benchmark        Benchmark
       66     seated                  5               5         100.0%
       75     seated                17              13           76.5%
       40     seated                25              24           96.0%
       42     seated                15              14           93.3%
       79     seated                13              10           76.9%
       44     seated                22              15           68.2%
              Total -
              Seated                 97               81          83.5%


                    English 112 - online sections
               Teaching          Total      # Passing        % Passing
 Section        Method          Tested     Benchmark        Benchmark
       90     online                  8               3          37.5%
       91     online                15                9          60.0%
       84     online                18              11           61.1%
       89     online                22              15           68.2%
              Total -
              Online                 63               38          60.3%

                 English 112 - All Sections
           Teaching      Total      # Passing               % Passing
  Section  Method       Tested Benchmark                   Benchmark
       90 online               8              3                 37.5%
          91   online                15                9           60.0%
          84   online                18               11           61.1%
          89   online                22               15           68.2%
          66   seated                 5                5          100.0%
          75   seated                17               13           76.5%
          40   seated                25               24           96.0%
          42   seated                15               14           93.3%
          79   seated                13               10           76.9%
          44   seated                22               15           68.2%
               Total All            160              119           74.4%




C. PSY 150 – General Psychology

  Objective: 70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 7 of
  10 questions.

 Nast name of person completing report: William Brinnier, MA
 Name of Department:
    Social/Behavioral Sciences
 Goal Measured:
   Critical Thinking/Problem
 Solving
 Course(s) in which assessment took place:
    PSY 150

 What was the benchmark for this measure?
 70% of students will score a minimum of 12 maximum value of 20

 Please fill in the following information:
     1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 245
     2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 192
     3.   The number in question 2 represents 78% of students meeting the benchmark.

 What method of assessment did you use?
 Students are supplied with a research scenario and asked to answer eight multiple choice questions designed
 to measure their critical thinking skills across four levels of difficulty and yielding a score which equates to one
 of four levels of proficiency
 What tool did you use?
 This critical thinking assessment measures inductive reasoning capacities in students, as evidenced by their
 knowledge of scientific methodology, specifically experimental research. Inductive reasoning is a cognitive skill
 which involves the ability to recognize and understand patterns and relationships in a problem and use this
understanding to solve other instances of the problem. Understanding the basics of scientific methodology is
essential to critical thinking in psychology and to an educated populace of individual information consumers,
who must evaluate the legitimacy and relevance of the information they encounter in the modern world

Successful completion of the assessment requires
1.     Critical knowledge and basic comprehension-of the essential components of an experiment; those being
      Hypothesis, operational definitions, random assignment, independent variable, dependent variable,
      experimental group, control group.
Questions 1 and 2 involve the cognitive actions of: naming, distinguishing and comparing. This constitutes the
first level of critical thinking difficulty and the questions are weighted one point apiece.

2. Critical application and analysis
Questions 3 and 4 involve the cognitive actions of: examining, classifying & identifying the essential
components of an experiment. This constitutes the second level of critical thinking difficulty and the questions
are weighted at two points a piece.

3. Critical synthesis
Questions 5 and 6 involve the cognitive actions of: designing, formulating and suggesting from the essential
components of the experiment provided. This constitutes the third level of critical thinking difficulty and are
worth three points a piece.

4. Critical evaluation
Questions 7 and 8 involve the cognitive actions of judging, selecting, and recommending from the essential
components of the experiment provided. These constitute the highest level of critical thinking difficulty and the
questions are worth four points apiece.

SCORING the ASSESSMENT: Students are assessed as to whether critical thinking is either present or
absent in the students answer choice for each of the eight multiple choice questions. If the student answers
correctly they are evidencing critical thinking along the level the question targets, and thus receive the
corresponding point value. If the student chooses incorrectly then critical thinking skills are considered absent
at the level the question addresses and no points are accrued. After the student has completed the entire
assessment, each student receives a numerical score representing one of the following levels of critical
thinking:
Exceptional 16-20 points
Proficient 12-15 points
Developing 3- 11 points
Absent 0-2 points
(Personalized Assessment Grid which links Gen Ed Assessment with Core Competency initiatives )
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
The Psychology faculty has a favorable impression of the assessment; it appears to be a reliable instrument for
measuring critical thinking in psychology. Objective multiple choice assessments are a useful and pragmatic
way to measure critical thinking in psychology, and potentially are more valid than analyzing a student’s written
responses. Assessments of critical thinking that require written responses are open to criticism that what is
being measured is not critical thinking but writing proficiency. An objectively based multiple choice instrument
also controls for the confound of inter-rater reliability. Additionally the use of a writing assessment in
Psychology is contraindicated in that psychology classes do not have a writing proficiency requirement. The
use of a written assessment that requires professorial perusal is also pragmatically infeasible in large classes;
especially those in access of fifty students.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
142 of 178 met benchmark; 80% success rate. Students showed significant improvement in their critical
thinking skills over last year’s performance
Online
50 of 67 met benchmark; 75% success rate. Data indicates that online students are scoring well above the
benchmark and just slightly below traditional classroom settings
Overall
192 of 245 met benchmark; 78% The department is pleased that both in class and online students
demonstrated marked improvement in their critical thinking skills
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
The data seems to indicate that face to face and online students on average are having more difficulty with
questions tapping level one critical knowledge and basic comprehension than they are with more difficult level
three critical synthesis and level four critical evaluation questions
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
Face to face classes did much better this year increasing their scores by 33%: from 60% meeting the
benchmark in 2009 to 80% in 2010
Online
Online students also showed signicant gains in 2010 up from 60% meeting the benchmark in 2009 to 75%
meeting benchmark this year
Overall
The department is very pleased that a focus on the development of varied instructional techniques, both in
class and particularly on line are yielding impressive gains in a relatively short period of time in our student’s
ability to think critically. These techniques were derived from departmental meetings in the Fall of 2009 and
Spring of 2010; they are included in last year’s report.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Targeting critical thinking through an increased instructorial focus seemed to prepare students more fully for
the assessment. Developing alternative methods for delivering the information helped to reach different
student learning styles , the result being more students were able to fine tune their critical thinking skills
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Development of additional assessments in the area of Learning Principles and Perspectives in Psychology to
match our departments outcome statements
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Most of in class and online classes used an assessment that was delivered through Bb exam format. The
assessments are scored electronically though the manner in which the data was reported varied. Bb generally
allows options for printing class distribution on the critical thinking assessment, determining how many students
met the benchmark requires adding up those students who scored 60% or above (12 or higher) Some Bb
formats however make that impossible (if instructors have their classes pooled) and individual performances
must be tracked down physically from Bb records. Other instructors used a hard copy for face to face classes,
these must be physically scored. Examples of these varied reporting methods are included as well as a weak
and strong student performance.


Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
             Psychology 150 - seated sections
           Teaching             Total      # Passing        % Passing
 Section    Method             Tested     Benchmark        Benchmark
       1 seated                    40              30           75.0%
       5 seated                    44              32           72.7%
       6 seated                    38              37           97.4%
       7 seated                    21              14           66.7%
      18 seated                    19              18           94.7%
      70 seated                    16              11           68.8%
         Total -
     107 Seated                    178             142           79.8%



                  Psychology 150 - online sections
           Teaching             Total      # Passing        % Passing
 Section    Method             Tested     Benchmark        Benchmark
       85 online                   18              11           61.1%
       92 online                   16              13           81.3%
       87 online                   17              13           76.5%
       93 online                   16              13           81.3%
          Total -
      357 Online                    67               50          74.6%

               Psychology 150 - All Sections
 Sectio  Teaching       Total      # Passing               % Passing
   n      Method       Tested Benchmark                   Benchmark
     85 online              18             11                  61.1%
     92 online              16             13                  81.3%
     87 online              17             13                  76.5%
          93   online                 16                13            81.3%
           1   seated                 40                30            75.0%
           5   seated                 44                32            72.7%
           6   seated                 38                37            97.4%
           7   seated                 21                14            66.7%
          18   seated                 19                18            94.7%
          70   seated                 16                11            68.8%
         464   Total All             245               192            78.4%


D. ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics

      Objective: 70% of students taking the Critical Thinking test will answer correctly 7 of
      10 questions.

Name of person completing report: Eric Taylor
Name of Department:
   Economics
Goal Measured:
   Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
   ECO 251

What was the benchmark for this measure?
60% of students will score a minimum of 6 maximum value of 10

Please fill in the following information:
    1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 189
    2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 142
    3.    The number in question 2 represents 75.1% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
10 Question Multiple Choice Exam. Questions were chose by the economic faculty and given approval by the Gen
Ed committee
What tool did you use?
See Attached Quiz
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
The faculty like the assessment tool in terms of critical thinking. The assessment is perceived to be moderately
difficult for the subject material with a focus on evaluating dynamics in the theory. Critical thinking is needed for
students apply the theory through several small scenario based questions to arrive at a correct answer.
Online
Faculty likes the assessment tool in terms of critical thinking. They are perceived to be moderately difficult
questions for the subject material with a focus on evaluating dynamics in the theory - this is the same as above
since the assessment is the same for the online sections.
Overall
Faculty likes the assessment tool in terms of critical thinking. They are perceived to be moderately difficult
questions for the subject material with a focus on evaluating dynamics in the theory - this is the same as above
since the assessment is the same for the online sections.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Students working problems in-class and in groups tends seemed to lead to better performance.
Online
Classes that engaged more in online discussion boards tended to see better performance.
Overall
The ability of the student to become gainfully involved in discussion seemed to correlate with overall
performance.

What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Faculty general perceive the students not being prepared.
Online
Many online students seem to wait until the last minute to complete assignments or to participate. Faculty view
many online students (although not all) to sign up for the online sections to just avoid a lecture rather than the need
of an online section. This is perceived to translate into the slight performance gap seen in the face-to-face and
online sections. Otherwise, many of the same problems that plague some face-to-face sections are the same in the
online sections (e.g. - ability to translate a word problem into a math problem and solve for an answer or to directly
apply a scenario/theory from the book to similar problem on the exam).
Overall
Most of the Econ faculty will cite math skill as a weakness, but it seems to be their general inability to place a word
problem into a mathematical context that seems to be the core problem.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
Some faculty felt that students in general were not as prepared as they should be (don't read the book, etc.)
Online
It appears a small gap exists between the face-to-face classes and the online classes.
Overall
Overall, scores seemed to be correlated to the preparation level of the student/section.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
Working problems in class leads to better performance, and students working problems on their own lead to better
performance.
Online
The online sections were not analyzed separately in past assessments. There appears to be a small gap in
performance. Faculty feel this is primarily due to a lack of lecture – although more assignments are given to the
online sections in an attempt to compensate for the lack of lecture.
Overall
Overall, faculty still feel that the more practice the student receives before actual assessments, the better the
performance.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
The department is considering moving to a publisher provided homework manager that gives the students unique
practice not possible with written homework or online quizzing.
Online
Same as above
Overall
Same as above
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
The faculty don't see a large need to make any alterations with the assessment itself for the face-to-face classes
unless a decision is made to change textbook authors.
Online
Some thought changes to the assessment may be needed to account for a lack of a lecture and be more
specifically worded to conform to the book's exact phrasing for the online sections.
Overall
Overall, the faculty feel pleased with the assessment and the results. While the overall results increased, we don't
feel the increase to be substantial in nature to attribute the increase to any particular strategy or action.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
SEATED CLASSES Results
Number of students assessed: 120
Number of students who met assessment: 94
Percentage of students who met assessment: 78%

ONLINE CLASSES Results
Number of students assessed: 69
Number of students who met assessment: 48
Percentage of students who met assessment: 70%

OVERALL Results
Number of students assessed: 189
Number of students who met assessment: 142
Percentage of students who met assessment: 75%


Note: Complete summary of data is in Appendix.



                                 The College Met the Critical Thinking Goal.
General Education Goal Six: Cultural Awareness
Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural similarities and differences.

Because cultural awareness is not the domain of one discipline but is viewed by the College as
being incorporated across the curriculum, assessment for cultural awareness should be done in
a number of General Education courses. This assessment has been conducted in COM 110 and
SPA 112.

Enrollments for fall 2010 are as follows:

Term              Number of Sections            Number Enrolled             Course & Number
Fall 2010              48                          1,172                        COM 110
Fall 2010              10                            216                        SPA 112

Objective:        70% of students taking COM 110 Cultural Awareness test will answer correctly 7
                  of 10 questions; 70% of SPA 112 students will score 80% or higher on the
                  assessment.


    A. COM 110 – Introduction to Communication

Name of person completing report: Linda White
Name of Department:
  Communication
Goal Measured:
  Cultural Awareness
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
  COM 110

What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 7 maximum value of 10

Please fill in the following information:
    1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 707
    2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 559
    3.   The number in question 2 represents 79% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
Students completed a 10 multiple choice question test assessing student knowledge of cultural differences and
similarities relevant to content of the communication course. The assessment was given in forty sections of COM
110. (Due to pilot testing in first short session, first session classes were not assessed. The original assessment
was developed and pilot-tested in Spring 2007. Due to change in textbook for Fall 2010, a number of questions
were deleted or revised to adapt to the text. Two first short session classes were used to pilot the revised
assessment. The General Education Committee reviewed this assessment tool. Based on those results, further
changes were made to some of the test items. Questions were related to communication/ culture and language,
non-verbals, gender and perception.
What tool did you use?
The test has been submitted to portfolio file for this year's assessment.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
Faculty reviewed Scantron item analysis which represented about half of the assessments for face to face
classes. Grademaster forms were not included in the item analysis. Next year's analysis will need to include this
question by question breakdown as well.
  Comparison of pilot scores from First short session classes were compared to overall results. Generally the
response rate was improved. However, it was noted that Question 10 increased from 10% to 36%.
Online
Faculty noted a 4% difference (lower) in the online classes when compared to the face-to-face classes. No hard
evidence is available, at this time, to attribute the decrease to the assessment tool,
Overall
Faculty discussed possible reasons for the lower performance due to revisions made to the assessment in
conjunction with adoption of a new text with a different approach to cultural awareness. Faculty observed that
there was less repetition of terminology throughout the text but that the concepts are more integrated into the
content.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
While the overall results were not as high as last year, the COM faculty expressed satisfaction that the goal was
met. In particular, it was noted that only 11% of students missed Question 5 related to ways to improve cultural
understanding and skills. We agreed that this was indicative of student awareness and understanding of strategies
to improve their skills.
Online
While the overall results were not as high as last year, the COM faculty expressed satisfaction that the goal was
met. It was difficult to determine specific strengths without item analysis of responses
Overall
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Student responses based on item analysis indicate that students missed questions requiring application of
concepts and more complex questions with multiple correct responses.
Online
Same weakness observed.
Overall
Overall, same weakness observed.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
see overall
Online
see overall
Overall
Students met Cultural Awareness goal better under previous assessment and previous textbook. We will need to
review the concepts being tested so that they can be reinforced more directly in lessons whether online or face to
face
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
see overall
Online
see overall
Overall
Faculty noted the difficulty in comparing this year’s assessment to the previous year’s assessment because the
instrument was revised based on the adoption of a new COM 110 textbook. As noted below, we will make a
concerted effort to compare this year’s results with next year’s results in order to better address any questions or
concerns about the reliability of our assessment instrument. Faculty are also not certain as to the “timing” of this
year’s assessment, compared to last year’s assessment- given that the information is more spread out in this text
and may not have all been covered by the time the assessments were given to students.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
The COM faculty would like to conduct "focus groups" with students after they've taken the assessment to get their
perspective/interpretation of the questions.
COM faculty will also be conducting a workshop for part time faculty to review assessment results and discuss
strategies.
Online
The COM faculty would like to conduct "focus groups" with students after they've taken the assessment to get their
perspective/interpretation of the questions. Faculty teaching online COM 110 can share ideas at monthly COM
meetings.
Overall
The COM faculty would like to conduct "focus groups" with students after they've taken the assessment to get their
perspective/interpretation of the questions. Possible revision of assessment to reflect new text will be reviewed.
COM faculty will also be conducting a workshop for part time faculty to review assessment results and discuss
strategies.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):

SEATED Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 611
Number of students meet assessment score: 483
Percentage of students who met assessment: 79%

DISTANCE Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 96
Number of students meet assessment score: 76
Percentage of students who met assessment: 75%


OVERALL Results
Number of students assessed: 707
Number of students meet assessment score: 559
Percentage of students who met assessment: 79%


Note: Complete summary of data is in Appendix.
    B. SPA 112 – Elementary Spanish II



Name of person completing report: Jorge Koochoi
Name of Department:
   Foreign Languages
Goal Measured:
  Cultural Awareness
Course(s) in which assessment took place:
  SPA 112

What was the benchmark for this measure?
70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100

Please fill in the following information:
    1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 151
    2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 129
    3.    The number in question 2 represents 85% of students meeting the benchmark.

What method of assessment did you use?
Students need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding through a written examination (cultural section).
Administration in class with instructor scoring was determined to be a better method for the scoring process and
student’s participation. For the online classes, students need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding
through a written examination (cultural section) as well.
What tool did you use?
For face to face classes: Written examination with 10 short answers (fill in the blank) based on authentic cultural
readings. The total points for the assessment tool is 10 points. Each answer weights one point. The assessment
tool is from the test bank of the Spanish textbook students are using for a traditional class.
For online classes: Written examination with 16 short answers (fill in the blank with true or false choice and short
answers) based on authentic cultural readings. The total points for the assessment tool is 16 points. Each answer
weights one point. . The assessment tool is from the textbook students are using for an online Spanish class.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
Administration in class with instructor scoring was determined to be a better method for the scoring process and
student’s participation.
Online
The aim of our online cultural awareness assessment tool was students' expectation to demonstrate understanding
of, and extract relevant specific information from cultural readings.
Overall
Students were expected to demonstrate understanding of, and extract relevant specific information from cultural
readings using an adequate assessment tool. Students are using a textbook just for a traditional method of
instruction and another one for an online class.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering the questions correctly content wise.
Online
Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering the questions correctly content wise.
Overall
Students demonstrated knowledge of cultural points by answering the questions correctly content wise. We believe
in both method of instruction, students are gaining more cultural awareness based on the integration of more
cultural activities..
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students did not score higher on the examination because they did not demonstrate enough reading
comprehension and understanding skills. This means that the percentage of students who knew enough cultural
points to meet the benchmark was higher than the reported 70%.
Online
Students did not score higher on the examination because they did not demonstrate enough reading
comprehension and understanding skills. This means that the percentage of students who knew enough cultural
points to meet the benchmark was higher than the reported 70%.
Overall
Students did not score higher on the examination because they did not demonstrate enough reading
comprehension and understanding skills. This means that the percentage of students who knew enough cultural
points to meet the benchmark was higher than the reported 70%.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
We learned that our students are showing their improvement of gaining awareness of other cultures. Therefore,
we can safely assume that the cultural component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning
outcomes.
Online
We learned that our students are showing some progress on gaining awareness of other cultures. Therefore, we
can safely assume that the cultural component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning
outcomes.
Overall
We learned that our students are gaining significant awareness of other cultures. Therefore, we can safely assume
that the cultural component of our courses is adequate to achieve desired student learning outcomes.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compare d to this year?
Face-to-face
Integrating the cultural section on each test, the percentage of students who met the goal has improved.
Online
Students continued to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on online tasks and which are interactive, meaning
that they should aim at capturing the contextual and culturally embedded mediated nature of target language. The
percentage of students who met the goal has improved.
Overall
Integrating more cultural activities and the cultural section on each test, the percentage of students who met the
goal has improved.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
The faculty members will be asked to provide more activities on areas of culture which were less known by
students participating in this assessment. Training of new faculty members will emphasize these cultural aspects,
as well.
Online
The faculty members will be asked to assign more online activities on areas of culture which were less known by
students participating in this assessment. Training of new faculty members will emphasize these cultural aspects,
as well.
Overall
The faculty members will be asked to provide more activities on areas of culture which were less known by
students participating in this assessment. Training of new faculty members will emphasize these cultural aspects,
as well.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Students continue to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on tasks and which are interactive, meaning that they
should aim at capturing the contextual and culturally embedded mediated nature of target language.
Online
Students continue to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on online tasks and which are interactive, meaning
that they should aim at capturing the contextual and culturally embedded mediated nature of target language.
Overall
Students continue to examine cultural/linguistic to be based on tasks and which are interactive, meaning that they
should aim at capturing the contextual and culturally embedded mediated nature of target language. Overall, our
faculty thinks we are using the appropriate assessment tools for each method of instruction course.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):

SEATED Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 118
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 103
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 87%

ONLINE Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 33
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 26
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 79%

Overall Results
Number of students assessed: 151
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 129
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 85%

Note: Complete summary of data is located in the Appendix
General Education Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Social Sciences
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the influence of the individual on group behavior
and, conversely, the influence of the group on the individual(changed to…
Students will demonstrate an understanding of social institutions and of the diversity of human
experiences within a framework of historical and cultural contexts.

Objective: Seventy percent (70%) of students will score: 12 or better on the history essay and
2 or better on the sociology review question.

The Behavioral and Social Sciences goal is offered in a large number of in history, political
science, sociology, psychology, geography, anthropology and economics. Students may choose
from an array of courses in each area. For transfer requirements, students must choose a
history class (HIS 131, 132, 111, or 112). Students then choose 3 electives from discipline areas.
Through an analysis of enrollment trends, it was found that the majority of students select HIS
131 (American History I) and SOC 210 (Introduction to Sociology) to fulfill their social science
course requirements. PSY 150 (General Psychology) also captures a large number of students;
see the Critical Thinking section of this report for the assessment in PSY 150.

Enrollment in Behavioral and Social Science courses is substantial. Enrollment in the fall 2010
was as follows: For HIS 131 and SOC 210

Term              Number of Sections          Number Enrolled           Course & Number
Fall 2010              19                        501                        HIS 131
Fall 2010              34                        953                        SOC 210


   A. HIS 131 – American History I

     Last name of person completing report: Kathryn Wells
     Name of Department:
        Social/Behavioral Sciences
     Goal Measured:
        Social/Behavioral Sciences
     Course(s) in which assessment took place:
        HIS 131

     What was the benchmark for this measure?
     70% of students will score a minimum of 12 maximum value of 20
     Please fill in the following information:
            1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 159
            2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 122
            3.   The number in question 2 represents 76% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Essay response to a choice of questions on HIS 131 material
What tool did you use?
Students responded to essay questions. The faculty used a bank of 10 essay prompts from which students were to
choose 1 for an essay response.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
In order to eliminate idiosyncratic discrepancies, two evaluators scored the responses (with blind scoring) and the
results were reviewed as Set A and Set B. Although in theory this provides a type of check and balance procedure,
the outcome proved surprising. All instructors were provided with thorough instructions for applying the rubric in
grading, however the results were varying discrepancies in the assessment grades. We still agree that the
assessment tool is valid, but more emphasis needs to be placed on department expectations for grading outcomes.
Online
In order to eliminate idiosyncratic discrepancies, two evaluators scored the responses (with blind scoring) and the
results were reviewed as Set A and Set B. Although in theory this provides a type of check and balance procedure,
the outcome proved surprising. All instructors were provided with thorough instructions for applying the rubric in
grading, however the results were varying discrepancies in the assessment grades. We still agree that the
assessment tool is valid, but more emphasis needs to be placed on department expectations for grading outcomes.
Overall
In order to eliminate idiosyncratic discrepancies, two evaluators scored the responses (with blind scoring) and the
results were reviewed as Set A and Set B. Although in theory this provides a type of check and balance procedure,
the outcome proved surprising. All instructors were provided with thorough instructions for applying the rubric in
grading, however the results were varying discrepancies in the assessment grades. We still agree that the
assessment tool is valid, but more emphasis needs to be placed on department expectations for grading outcomes.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Scores were slightly less than last year's assessment, but still exceeded department minimums. Instructors continue
to report that the ENG 111 pre-requisite has made a positive difference in the student's ability to positively approach
this written assessment. Many students continued to produce coherent, analytical responses to essay topics and
demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material presented in the course.
Online
Scores were slightly less than last year's assessment, but still exceeded department minimums. Instructors continue
to report that the ENG 111 pre-requisite has made a positive difference in the student's ability to positively approach
this written assessment. Many students continued to produce coherent, analytical responses to essay topics and
demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material presented in the course.
Overall
Scores were slightly less than last year's assessment, but still exceeded department minimums. Instructors continue
to report that the ENG 111 pre-requisite has made a positive difference in the student's ability to positively approach
this written assessment. Many students continued to produce coherent, analytical responses to essay topics and
demonstrated a satisfactory knowledge of the material presented in the course.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
While many students wrote effectively, weaknesses still remain for students who are less experienced with writing.
Online
While many students wrote effectively, weaknesses still remain for students who are less experienced with writing.
Overall
While many students wrote effectively, weaknesses still remain for students who are less experienced with writing.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the process?
Face-to-face
There is no doubt that we have many capable and talented students, but we also have students who work well within
specific guidelines and expectations.
Online
There is no doubt that we have many capable and talented students, but we also have students who work well within
specific guidelines and expectations.
Overall
There is no doubt that we have many capable and talented students, but we also have students who work well within
specific guidelines and expectations.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
We continue to see a mixture of abilities reflected in the assessments.
Online
We continue to see a mixture of abilities reflected in the assessments.
Overall
We continue to see a mixture of abilities reflected in the assessments.
What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
See comments above regarding the rubric. We will continue to involve part-time instructors closely in the
assessment process. We would like to encourage instructor feedback and discussion on ways to ensure compliance
both in instructions/guidelines to the students, expectations from the students and the use of the grading rubric.
Online
See comments above regarding the rubric. We will continue to involve part-time instructors closely in the
assessment process. We would like to encourage instructor feedback and discussion on ways to ensure compliance
both in instructions/guidelines to the students, expectations from the students and the use of the grading rubric.
Overall
See comments above regarding the rubric. We will continue to involve part-time instructors closely in the
assessment process. We would like to encourage instructor feedback and discussion on ways to ensure compliance
both in instructions/guidelines to the students, expectations from the students and the use of the grading rubric.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
We did not find the sample to be reliable, in that these classes did not seem to reflect students' performances in the
history department as a whole. However, we believe that the issue may not be in the student assessment so much
as in a difference of expectation and instruction on part of the faculty.
Online
We did not find the sample to be reliable, in that these classes did not seem to reflect students' performances in the
history department as a whole. However, we believe that the issue may not be in the student assessment so much
as in a difference of expectation and instruction on part of the faculty.
Overall
We did not find the sample to be reliable, in that these classes did not seem to reflect students' performances in the
history department as a whole. However, we believe that the issue may not be in the student assessment so much
as in a difference of expectation and instruction on part of the faculty.
 Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):

 SEATED CLASSES Results
 Number of students assessed: 73
 Number of students who met assessment: 56
 Percentage of student who met assessment: 77%

 ONLINE CLASSES Results
 Number of students assessed: 86
 Number of students who met assessment: 66
 Percentage of student who met assessment: 77%

 OVERALL Results
 Number of students assessed: 159
 Number of students who met assessment: 122
 Percentage of student who met assessment: 77%

 NOTE: Complete summary of data is in Appendix




B. SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology

 Name of person completing report: Catherine Felton
 Name of Department:
   Social/Behavioral Sciences
 Goal Measured:
   Social/Behavioral Sciences
 Course(s) in which assessment took place:
   SOC 210

 What was the benchmark for this measure?
 70% of students will score a minimum of 2 maximum value of 3

 Please fill in the following information:
     1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 95
     2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 59
     3.   The number in question 2 represents 62% of students meeting the benchmark.

 What method of assessment did you use?
 Students respond to an essay question.
 What tool did you use?
 Assessment Question: A basic assumption of Sociology stresses the relationship between individuals an society .
Describe this relationship and provide an example of this interplay between self and society.

Assessment Rubric:
1 point: Describe the relationship between the individual and society
1 point: Demonstrates an ability to apply the concept through example(s) of the relationship between self and
society
1 Point: The example(s) illustrates an understanding of the relationship between the individual and society
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
Two seated classes completed the assessment. Some students did not respond to questions but gave examples.
Online
There were eight on line classes selected and results were submitted for seven of the classes. Students were
allowed to do the assessment as a timed component of an exam or as a separate assignment.
Overall
The students with the higher scores reflected their understanding of the concept. Some students provided
responses to the first two parts of the question but had difficulty in responding to the last part.
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
Students appeared to have a better understanding of the question. Scored higher than the on line
Online
Some students did very well and provided adequate responses.
Overall
Students who were already doing well in the class also did much better than those who were not doing well in the
class on a whole.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Writing skills are not on the college level. Some students failed to respond to the questions and discussed
sociology in general.
Online
Students not focusing on questions.
Overall
Students inability to present their thoughts and ideas in a coherent
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
Students still lack the writing skills to assist them in organizing and presenting their thoughts
Online
Students staying focused and responding to each of the questions
Overall
More emphasis needs to be placed on how faculty include this information in their courses throughout the
semester.
      What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared t o this year?
      Face-to-face
      More emphasis needs to be placed on the assessment
      Online
      In the course planning the assessment has to be included either through assignments, discussion board or other
      means to make sure that there is emphasis placed on the assessment.
      Overall
      More emphasis and consistency needs to be placed on the assessment by all faculty.
      What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
      learning in the area?
      Face-to-face
      Include the assessment on the syllabus as an objective . Students need to gain a better understanding of how the
      three parts of the rubric relate to each other.
      Online
      Develop a unified method for conducting the assessment..
      Overall
      Faculty will meet to discuss assessment delivery; time for assessment and develop some consistency in weight
      attached to the rubric. The review questions are going to be reviewed since many students had difficulty with the
      third point, the undertanding of the relationship between the individual and society.
      Other comments about the assessment:
      Face-to-face
      Online
      Overall
      Several instructors felt that the results were not representative of the actual performances of the majority of
      students in their classes. This relates to the fact that in some classes it was given as a part of the final exam and
      students who had done well in the classes had an option as to whether they would take the final exam.
      Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
      Seated Classes Results:
      Number of students assessed: 30
      Number of students who met assessment: 17
      Percentage of students who met assessment: 57%

      Online Classes Results:
      Number of students assessed: 65
      Number of students who met assessment: 42
      Percentage of students who met assessment: 62

      Overall Results:
      Number of students assessed: 95
      Number of students who met assessment: 59
      Percentage of students who met assessment: 62%

      Note: Complete data is located in the Appendix.


Overall success for the behavioral and social sciences goal: a total of 254 students were assessed between History
and Sociology with 181 meeting the benchmark (71.3%).

          The College Met the Behavioral and Social Sciences Goal.
General Education Goal Eight: Natural Sciences
Goal: Students will demonstrate comprehension of the major steps of the scientific method.

This goal was measured in BIO 110, the science class with the largest enrollment. Enrollment for
fall 2010 was as follows:

Term              Number of Sections          Number Enrolled            Course & Number
Fall 2010              18                        447                         BIO 110




      Name of person completing report: Jennifer Coble
      Name of Department:
            Natural Sciences

      Goal Measured:
            Natural Science
      Course(s) in which assessment took place:
            BIO 110

      What was the benchmark for this measure?
      70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100
      Please fill in the following information:
             1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 249
             2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 206
             3.   The number in question 2 represents 83% of students meeting the benchmark.
      What method of assessment did you use?
      The assessment presents students with a controlled scientific experiment and asks students to recognize and
      apply the steps of the scientific method. Students will answer a series of multiple choice questions. The
      assessment takes place during the final exam period for all sections of Bio110.
      What tool did you use?
      Multiple choice quiz developed by Biology instructors.
      What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
      Face-to-face
      see below
      Online
      see below
      Overall
      Both face-to-face and online faculty are satisfied with the tool since the changes were made several years ago.
      Everyone seems to agree that the test is fair.
      What student strengths were observed?
      Face-to-face
Students when prompted, can pick the correct answers. They may have mastered the process of elimination more
so than actual conceptual knowledge.
Online
Most students seem to have no trouble recognizing the steps of the scientific method. They can identify the parts
of a controlled experiment.
Overall
Everyone agrees that when given a case study students seem to be able to identify components of the scientific method.


What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students have difficulty thinking. They don’t want to put the effort into really thinking through a problem. Many
don’t seem to have the desire to learn to think more critically.
Online
Some students seem to have difficulty in applying the steps of the scientific method. The questions that required
higher level thinking gave some students trouble.
Overall
The consensus among many faculty based on in-class assignments geared toward critical thinking is that students
struggle with putting forth the effort it takes to think through a problem.
What did the department faculty learn about their students throug h the
process?
Face-to-face
There seem to be two groups of students: those that understand the concept and those that do not. There doesn’t
appear to be a middle group that can improve with working at the concept.
Online
Faculty felt that some students still struggle with critical thinking. These students seem to be able to define the
process involved in the scientific method, but have difficulty when asked to actually put it to work.
Overall
There needs to be more willingness on the part of the students to learn how to think critically. To put forth the
extra effort it takes to think past the simple regurgitation of definitions.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
see below
Online
see below
Overall
The scores were down this year but still within the benchmark. The reason for the drop is not obvious. The same
strategies that were used the previous year were still being used. The assessment tool has not been changed.
We did have two more sections that were taught as hybrid this year, but both of those sections did very well.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Offer more thought-based assignments, class work and test questions.
Online
We will continue to offer several labs and extra credit activities that encourage the use of the scientific method.
These opportunities are geared toward helping students see how this process can be applied to everyday life.
Overall
Faculty all agree that more emphasis needs to be placed on the process throughout the semester. Most labs that
are geared toward experimental design occur in the first half of the semester. The later half involves diversity,
which requires more memorization.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
An few added notes: 1. Three sections did not complete the assessment due to instructor negligence. This was a
part-time instructor who is no longer with us. 2. I have copies of example in-class assignments that are given
during the semester to teach the concept of the scientific method.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
 Seated Classes Results
 Section   Number meeting                 Number                Percentage
           assessment                     assessed              meeting
                                                                assessment
     7                    16                      20
     8                    18                      18
     9                    17                      19
    10                    21                      22
    11                    15                      17
    12                    21                      24
    13                    10                      16
    14                     9                      13
   Totals                127                     149                    88%

 Distance Classes Results (Hybrid – lecture online/lab in class)
 Section    Number meeting Number               Percentage
            assessment        assessed          meeting
                                                assessment
 1          14                21
 2          11                20
 3          12                15
 4          17                19
 5          10                10
 6          15                15
            79                100               79%

 OVERALL Results
 Number of students assessed                                249
 Number of students who passed assessment                   206
Percentage of students who passed   83%
assessment


                      The College Met the Natural Science Goal.
General Education Goal Nine: Humanities/Fine Arts
Goal: Students will demonstrate knowledge of the humanities and critical skills in assessing
cultural/artistic merit and significance.

Students may select from a range of courses for Humanities/Fine Arts requirements including
Art, Music, Drama, Literature and Humanities. Through an analysis of enrollment trends, it
was found that the majority of students select ART 111 (Art Appreciation), MUS 110 (Music
Appreciation) and HUM 130 (Myth in Human Culture).

Objective:    At least 70% of students will score a 70% or higher on ART111; 70% will score
70% or higher on MUS 110; 70% will score 3 of 5 on HUM 130 assessment.

Enrollments for the fall 2009 were as follows:

Term              Number of Sections        Number Enrolled          Course & Number
Fall 2010              10                      282                       ART 111
Fall 2010              21                      680                       MUS 110
Fall 2010                5                     132                       HUM 130


   A. ART 111 – Art Appreciation




      Last name of person completing report: Carolyn Jacobs
      Name of Department:
            Fine Arts


      Goal Measured:
            Cultural Awareness


      Course(s) in which assessment took place:
            ART111



      What was the benchmark for this measure?
      70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100

      Please fill in the following information:
             1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 142
             2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 129
             3.   The number in question 2 represents 90.8% of students meeting the benchmark.
What method of assessment did you use?
Students completed a Virtual Exhibit via powerpoint, including a thematic statement.
What tool did you use?
Students were provided the following rubric:1. Identify a thoughtful theme for your exhibit. The ideas for themes of
the exhibit are limitless. Use your own interests and creativity to find a possible theme for your show.

1. Research and identify at least 10 works of art for your exhibit. You must include artwork by at least 2 different
artists and 2 different media in your exhibit. Use the internet, museum websites, your book, books in the library, or
galleries. The 10 artworks do not have to be artworks that you have seen in person. For example, if you want to
include the “Mona Lisa” in an exhibit about portraits, the Louvre will graciously lend you this priceless work of art.

1. For each of the 10 artworks, provide the following in label format: (40 points total). These can be provided with
the images or in a separate numbered list.

Title of artwork (1 point)
Artist (1 point)
Date of artwork (1 point)
Media (1 point)

1. Write a catalogue essay that explains your choice in theme and why you picked these 10 artworks to go
together. Essay should be at least 500 words, nicely organized, and in complete and correct sentences. You
must investigate the WHY of putting together these images. Is there a connection between a certain formal
element? Do they all use light in a certain way, use the same color, have the same style, etc.? How do your
images explore your theme? What can the visitor to your exhibit learn or take away from seeing the artworks?
(60 points total)

For essay scoring purposes:
-   Introduction paragraph (5 points)
-   Three to four body paragraphs making the argument for your theme including information on your choices (15
points)
-   Referring specifically to at least 4 artworks in your exhibit with supporting details and explanations of how
these works relate to your theme (20 points)
-   Using correct grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, no misspellings, etc. (5 points)
-   Bibliography of at least 2 sources other than your book. (5 points)
-   Creativity of overall theme and presentation (10 points)
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
This assessment is a vast improvement over previous Gen Ed assesments, and is a valuable tool in perceiving
how much cultural awareness students can convey.
Online
This assessment is a vast improvement over previous Gen Ed assesments, and is a valuable tool in perceiving
how much cultural awareness students can convey.
Overall
This assessment is a vast improvement over previous Gen Ed assesments, and is a valuable tool in perceiving
how much cultural awareness students can convey.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
94% of face to face students met the benchmark, indicating a slightly higher success rate in the traditional
classroom.
Online
88.4% of students met the benchmark, indicating a slightly lower success rate than in the traditional classroom.
Overall
When students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far more engaged in the project.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
Students are weak regarding citation methods, particularly when to cite.
Online
Students are weak regarding citation methods, particularly when to cite.
Overall
Students are weak regarding citation methods, particularly when to cite.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
It reinforced the idea that when students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far more engaged in
the project.
Online
It reinforced the idea that when students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far more engaged in
the project.
Overall
It reinforced the idea that when students can relate cultural studies to their own lives, they are far more engaged in
the project.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
We "overhauled" the assessment, and it provided us with more clear concept of how to engage students
Online
We "overhauled" the assessment, and it provided us with more clear concept of how to engage students
Overall
We "overhauled" the assessment, and it provided us with more clear concept of how to engage students


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
We will continue to fine tune the assessment.
Online
We will continue to fine tune the assessment. Additionally, we will discuss strategies for improving student
success in online courses.
Overall
We will continue to fine tune the assessment, but we feel this is an excellent tool in regards to documenting
cultural awareness.
  Other comments about the assessment:
  Face-to-face

  Online

  Overall

  Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
  Section   90-100   80-89       70-79   60-69   50-59   Below 50
  1         5        4                   1
  2         11       3
  5 &6      27       7           5       1       1       1
  85*       10       4           5               3
  86*       16       4                                   2
  87&88*    16       6           6       2               2
  totals    85       28          16      4       4       5

  * indicates online sections.




B. MUS 110 – Music Appreciation

  Name of person completing report: Holly Maurer
  Name of Department:
     Music
  Goal Measured:
     Humanities/Fine Arts
  Course(s) in which assessment took place:
     MUS 110

  What was the benchmark for this measure?
  70% of students will score a minimum of 70 maximum value of 100

  Please fill in the following information:
      1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 232
      2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 170
      3.    The number in question 2 represents 73% of students meeting the benchmark.

  What method of assessment did you use?
  multiple choice test administered at end of semester
  What tool did you use?
  10 question multiple choice test (see attached)
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
This was a revised test to try to address more directly the stated goal. Results were similar to other years. The
wording of one or two questions may be modified for clarity.

Online
The scores for online students were much better with 84% meeting the benchmark. We believe this was due to
the different testing circumstances where students had access to their texts.

Overall
Each instructor teaches the class differently, and administers the assessment under different conditions. This is
reflected in the scores
What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
In all sections, whether online or not, students performed better on questions from the end of the course. The
questions most missed were on the earliest material.

Online
In all sections, whether online or not, students performed better on questions from the end of the course. The
questions most missed were on the earliest material.

Overall
In all sections, whether online or not, students performed better on questions from the end of the course. The
questions most missed were on the earliest material.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
In all sections the questions most missed were on the earliest material.
Online
In all sections the questions most missed were on the earliest material
Overall
In all sections the questions most missed were on the earliest material.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?

Face-to-face
Retention of material is a challenge for all students. However online classes scored better overall, we believe
because students could look up answers in the text.
Online
Retention of material is a challenge for all students. However online classes scored better overall, we believe
because students could look up answers in the text.
Overall
Retention of material is a challenge for all students. However online classes scored better overall, we believe
because students could look up answers in the text.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
Although the results did not change dramatically (73% this year in contrast to 79% last year), the new
assessment seems to even out the scores for face-to-face and online sections.
Online
Online students scored better than face-to-face classes but not at the level of last year where 100% of on-line
students met the benchmark last year. We're not sure what accounts for the decline in online scores although
all sections were using an on-line text and were assessed with a revised tool.
Overall
Although the results did not change dramatically (73% this year in contrast to 79% last year), the new
assessment seems to even out the scores for face-to-face and online sections.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
As a response to retention difficulties it would be helpful to reference earlier material in the latter part of the
semester.
Online
As a response to retention difficulties it would be helpful to reference earlier material in the latter part of the
semester.
Overall
As a response to retention difficulties it would be helpful to reference earlier material in the latter part of the
semester.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Changes to the assessment were relatively minor attempting to substitute concept questions for basic fact
questions where appropriate. For instance, The ____________ section is the largest section of a symphony
orchestra. Was changed to The performing ensemble most associated today with Western Art music is the
________.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):
Seated Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 209
Number of students meeting assessment: 149
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 71%

Online Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 23
Number of students meeting assessment: 21
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 91%

Overall Results
Number of students assessed: 232
Number of students meeting assessment: 170
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 73%

Note: Complete data is located in Appendix
C. HUM 130 - Myth in Human Culture



  Name of person completing report: Allan Di Donato
  Name of Department:
    English, Reading &
  Humanities
  Goal Measured:
     Humanities/Fine Arts
  Course(s) in which assessment took place:
     HUM 130

  What was the benchmark for this measure?
  70% of students will score a minimum of 3 maximum value of 5

  Please fill in the following information:
      1.    Number of students evaluated or assessed: 115
      2.    Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 82
      3.    The number in question 2 represents 71% of students meeting the benchmark.

  What method of assessment did you use?
  Essay Question administered towards the end of the semester and scored as a portion of the student's overall
  grade. In the Fall of 2010, 5 sections of Hum 130 were selected for assessment. Grading of the sections was done by
  four instructors in the English, Reading, and Humanities Division, specifically those instructors who have taught the
  Hum 130 course. When there was a discrepancy between two graders concerning whether a student passed or
  failed (e.g., between a 2 and a 3 = 2.5), a third grader juried the score.
  What tool did you use?
  Essay Question:
  The term “myth” comes from the Greek word mythos, which means “story.” We commonly perceive myths
  to be “untrue”; however, a myth performs many vital functions in a society that believes it, and for that
  society the myth contains “truth.”
  During this semester we have discussed various theories of how a myth functions in a society: including
  the natural, etiological, cosmological, psychological, sociological, linguistic, mystical, and pedagogical. We
  have discussed most of these functions, but not all of them.
  First, pick a story that you really enjoyed this semester. Analyze it as to how it probably functioned in the
  society that believed it was true. Discuss this function, and show how this myth contains this function.
  Second, analyze your myth in terms of the values it contains for the society that believed it. Discuss at
  least one value at length.
  For Example: Let’s say I enjoyed the myth of Demeter and Persephone and how it relates to the natural
  world. I can then discuss how this myth functions. Obviously, the best function is the Nature-Myth, also
  called the natural function, which explains some aspect of the natural world. I will discuss how the
  Demeter-Persephone myth explains the changing of the seasons. As for the values the story contains, I
  can discuss what it tells the society about death, and I can explain how the story reflects the marriage
  customs of the ancient Greeks, where the father selects the husband for his daughter.
  You will write a thoughtful paper in which you explore both the function and values of the story. Do not
  simply retell the story, but do use examples from the story to support your point.
  You can include research in your paper, but you are not required to have it. This paper is designed to
  show me what you have learned in class by analyzing a myth.

  Rubric:
5 – the student’s response clearly describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response
further provides an example of a specific myth that shows a clear understanding of a “truth” for a culture.
The response is clearly organized and well written.

4 – the student’s response describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response further
provides an example of a specific myth that shows some understanding of a “truth” for a culture. The
response is clearly organized and well written

3 – the student’s response describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The response further
provides an example of a specific myth that shows a minimal understanding of a “truth” for a culture. The
response may be poorly organized and poorly written

2 – the student’s response inadequately describes a function of a myth in a particular culture. The
response may provide an example but shows a poor understanding of the “truth” of a particular culture.
The response is poorly organized and poorly written.

1 – the student’s response does not describe a function of a myth in a particular culture. The example, if
provided, does not show an understanding of the “truth” for a culture. The response is poorly organized
and poorly written.
What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
Face-to-face
The faculty believes the assessment tool is equally well suited for both traditional and online testing.
Online
The faculty believes the assessment tool is equally well suited for both traditional and online testing.
Overall
            The Humanities Faculty continues to view the current assessment question (revised Fall 2008) as
an improvement over the previous version with respect to clarifying department expectations of the
students. Feedback has indicated strong approval for the tool’s design, and that the faculty is pleased with
its ability to address the essential relationships between myth and culture. The responses gathered verify
that students clearly understand what is being asked of them, and that they have the ability to elaborate on
the course material.
            The department’s efforts to standardize how the assessment would be administered and factored
into the course grade, in order to communicate the importance of the assessment and maximize the
number of student responses, has resulted in noticeable improvements over the last few semesters. All
instructors have taken steps to weight the assessment as a portion of the students’ overall semester
grade. Additionally, some faculty believe the assignment valuable enough to include as a regular part of
their course requirements.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
          This year the division offered only one traditional HUM 130 section. The strengths observed were
similar to those noted in the online classes, and are included in the Overall section below.
Online
There is no noticeable difference in student strengths between online and traditional students. Some online
classes performed better than others, but the department believes that both online and traditional classes
are equally suited to grasp and master the skills being taught.
Overall
          Most students showed a strong understanding of the cultural issues addressed by the myths discussed
over the course of the semester. Even students who failed to communicate a clear understanding of a function of
myth were able to identify some culturally significant elements in the traditional stories. Even among the lowest
scoring students a general understanding of sociological and cosmological significance could be detected. This result
is similar to those of years past.


What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
           There were no noticeable differences in student weaknesses between traditional and online
classes.
Online
           There were no noticeable differences in student weaknesses between traditional and online
classes.
Overall
          When asked to identify a function of myth many of the students continue to focus on allegorical
interpretation related to a pre-scientific understanding of nature. This is a trend that continues to persist
year to year. However, the faculty did note that, following last year’s example, a greater number of
students opted to discuss the sociological function of myth than have in the past. Since the last two years
have shown similar results it is likely to be due to a shift in instructional emphasis on the part of the faculty
to make up for what were perceived as deficiencies in the student analyses prior. While allegory is a
legitimate element in some myths, the allegorical focus on many assessments seems to indicate that
students either did not grasp alternative functions as clearly or simply sought to avoid a more complicated
discussion. Though the later is most likely the case for many, the increasing number of sociological
discussions may indicate that past students may not have been as sufficiently equipped to discuss such
issues as the students of the last two assessment periods.
A continuing concern is that some students seem to have difficulty distinguishing mere plot summaries
from the more substantial analysis the assessment seeks to elicit.
          As in the past, the most prominent weakness evident in the assessments was student inability to
organize and communicate their thoughts. Though a fair understanding of the issue in question could be
gathered from many essays, it was often difficult to identify in a single reading. This problem can be the
result of a lack of clarity in thinking through the material, but is more likely due to student ability in the area
of composition.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
           See below.
Online
On average, the size of an online class at the end of a semester is slightly smaller than that of a traditional
class. And of those that complete the semester, a smaller proportion of students in the online classes
actually complete the assessment. This semester approximately 95% of the online students who remained
through the end of the semester completed the assessment, compared to 100% of the traditional students.
The difference is not particularly significant, especially given the fact that only one traditional section was
offered. However, this year, the percentage passing the assessment in both traditional and online classes
was virtually the same (72% for online students, 70% for traditional students). This is not likely due to the
nature of the assessment, since the essay format and manner of administration do not provide either group
an advantage in time or resources. The lower total number of responses in clearly due to the lower
retention rates in online education. And the higher overall percentage of success may reflect the
determination and care characteristic of those students who persevere in completing the course. The lower
response rate may be due to lower performing students in the online classes being the ones most likely to
fail in completing the assessment, while the lower performing students in the traditional classes are less
able to get away with avoiding the assignment.
Overall
          Of the students completing HUM 130, the vast majority entered with little to no knowledge of the
stories composing this body of literature, and without the ability to either define myth or identify its cultural
significance, yet emerged with a noticeable grasp of how myth functions in society, as well as an
understanding of various world perspectives reflected in myth.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this
year?
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
          As stated above: When asked to identify a function of myth many of the students continue to
focus on allegorical interpretation related to a pre-scientific understanding of nature. This is a trend that
continues to persist year to year. However, the faculty did note that, following last year’s example, a
greater number of students opted to discuss the sociological function of myth than have in the past. Since
the last two years have shown similar results it is likely to be due to a shift in instructional emphasis on the
part of the faculty to make up for what were perceived as deficiencies in the student analyses prior. While
allegory is a legitimate element in some myths, the allegorical focus on many assessments seems to
indicate that students either did not grasp alternative functions as clearly or simply sought to avoid a more
complicated discussion. Though the later is most likely the case for many, the increasing number of
sociological discussions may indicate that past students may not have been as sufficiently equipped to
discuss such issues as the students of the last two assessment periods.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching
and learning in the area?
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
          In our continuous effort to grow in our expertise, the department routinely engages in various
areas of study that lead to specialization in diverse historical world cultures. Several instructors are still
actively involved in graduate work relevant to the content of the HUM 130 course. Instructors seek to
provide a wide selection of mythic traditions in order to expose the students to as many historical cultures
as possible, while seeking to provide clear discussion that will result in an understanding of the inherent
unity of myth. In addition to modifying story selection, the department will continue to place greater
emphasis on aspects of myth interpretation that students have overlooked in responding to the Gen Ed
assessment in the past. Some instructors have been experimenting with new text books that place a
greater emphasis on myth theory and interpretation to see how student comprehension is impacted. The
faculty plans on reviewing the results. The faculty also plans on meeting more regularly to discuss these
issues and promote department consistency.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):

Seated Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 27
Number of students who met assessment: 19
Percentage of students who met assessment: 70%

Online Classes Results
Number of students assessed: 141
Number of students who met assessment: 83
Percentage of students who met assessment: 71%

Overall Results
Number of student assessed: 141
Number of students who met assessment: 82
Percentage of students who met assessment: 71%

Note: Complete data is located in Appendix



                                      The College Met the Fine Arts Goal.
General Education Goal Ten: Information Literacy
Goal: Students will effectively use research techniques to identify, select, use, document and evaluate
information sources appropriate to a particular need.

      Name of person completing report: Erin Payton
      Name of Department:
         Library
      Goal Measured:
         Information Literacy
      Course(s) in which assessment took place:
      Library
      classes
      What was the benchmark for this measure?
      70% of students will score a minimum of 6 maximum value of 10

      Please fill in the following information:
          1.   Number of students evaluated or assessed: 374
          2.   Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score: 235
          3.   The number in question 2 represents 63% of students meeting the benchmark.

      What method of assessment did you use?
      The library used a five question assessment that included three multiple answer questions and two short answer
      questions. We chose to use the same assessment tool as last year to see if we could determine any growth or
      change from Fall '09 to Fall '10, even though we determined some problems with the tool in 2009 and some
      librarians' dissatisfaction with it. The assessments were given at the end of a general education class's library
      instruction session and completed/collected before the students left. Unlike Fall '09, the Library Director and the
      Head of Instruction determined to limit the classes to only ENG and COM classes (ENG 111/112/113 and 114 and
      COM 110/COM 231, to be specific). The sections were randomly selected for the assessment as the sessions
      were scheduled (since library instruction sessions are scheduled ad hoc by the instructor, they cannot be identified
      ahead of time). The assessment is attached.
      What tool did you use?
      The library used a 10 point rubric to score the assessments, with each question on the assessment worth a
      maximum of two points. The assessments were scored blindly, and each assessment was scored by a librarian
      and a UNC Greensboro library intern. The rubric is attached.
      What was faculty analysis/perception of the assessment tool?
      Face-to-face
      While the tool did provide the librarians with information on students' ability to apply concepts related to information
      literacy, the instruction librarians discussed the difficulty with developing a tool that matches the goals of library
      instruction. This difficulty arises from the nature of library instruction itself, which varies by the faculty member's
      assignment and their request for what the instruction should cover, as well as a time limit of one class period,
      typically 50 or 75 minutes. The timeframe drastically limits the number of concepts or objectives the librarian can
      cover. As a result, it is difficult to design a single assessment that works ideally across all library instruction
      sessions. Specifically, the librarians noted an issue with the wording of the multiple answer questions, and the fact
      that students often missed either one right answer or the other, making it impossible for even excellent students to
      get a 10/10. Multiple answer questions should be replaced with multiple choice questions, where there is only
      ONE right answer to lessen confusion.
      Online
      The e-learning librarian used the same survey used in face-to-face classes and offered it to nine online classes.
      However the major difference was that the tool was treated as a volunteer survey in the online classes as opposed
to an assessment--students could take it or not--it was note required for a grade. Therefore we have very spotty
data from the classes that we assessed, with the average number of respondents being about five per course (with
a high of 13 in one and a low of 1 in another). This assessment piece was also included with another survey about
the efficacy of the embedded librarian in the online course, mingling the mission of the two surveys. For these two
reasons, the librarians feel that the data (included below) is not particularly reliable compared to the data retrieved
in face-to-face classes, so a change we will be making next year is to require that if a librarian is embedded into a
gen ed course, a mandatory assessment will be included as part of their grade, completely separate from any
other survey that might be given.
*Please note: The one course in the data below defined as "ONLINE-NO EMBEDDED LIBRARIAN" was an
assessment (required as a quiz) given by the Director of Library Services who also teaches ENG 111 part-time.
The average assessment score in that course was significantly higher (81%), and thus is considered an outlier to
the rest of the data.
Overall
In face-to-face classes we have been using this assessment tool for two years now, and it is time to make a
change. We were hoping to get some good data from online courses, but did not fully understand the implications
of not making the assessment mandatory for students to take as part of their grade, thereby lessening the number
of respondents. The librarians feel the only way to truly assess what students are learning across the curriculum
with information literacy is to have specific objectives for each course and have assessment tools designed to
assess those particular objectives depending on what course is taught. The one-size-fits-all approach with
information literacy assessment is ineffective at best, and does not judge what our students are learning.
Another concern is that these assessments are given directly after instruction, thereby testing students on what the
librarian has taught them. A good assessment tool would be given to students weeks after instruction to see how
they have incorporated information literacy techniques into their research.


What student strengths were observed?
Face-to-face
See below.
Online
See below.
Overall
Students had an understanding of the issue of currency, or the timeliness of research, and the information timeline
(i.e., books take longer to come to print, journal and magazine articles less time, etc.). They also understood that
information on the open web needs to be evaluated more stringently than library resources, and the open web is
not inherently as trustworthy as library resources and need extra validation. Most students also understood the
need to break down a research topic into key concepts, and that they need to determine key terms to search with.
What student weaknesses were observed?
Face-to-face
See below.
Online
See below.
Overall
The primary student weakness related to their ability to evaluate information for concepts like reliability, accuracy,
and authority, particularly based on the source of the information. Students do not seem to be able to determine
which information is most relevant and reliable for their research-- everything has equal weight in their eyes, and
they don't understand why some sources should work better than others for their research. The librarians
discussed the fact that students do not differentiate between Internet sources like Google and Wikipedia and web-
based library resources (article databases, e-books, etc.). They also don't understand what kinds of sources are in
the catalog (books, e-books, dvds), and what is in the databases (articles, newspapers, scholarly journals). And
while students understand the concept of key terms, their skills at using those terms to formulate a search need to
be developed, as well as how to narrow down those key terms to make a worthwhile and usable research
statement for their papers and speeches.
What did the department faculty learn about their students through the
process?
Face-to-face
See below.
Online
See below.
Overall
Students do not understand how to incorporate research critically into their speeches and term papers. They might
think they can gather it, but they do not know how to synthesize the information to support their thesis statements.
Many seem to believe that all information is equal -- blogs and scholarly articles don't really differ that much,
especially if they're in an electronic format. And because the library session is an add-on to a class, students don't
have real attachment information literacy, or see why it's particularly relevant to them. It is difficult to make those
connections with students in a one-shot setting.
What did faculty learn from last year’s assessment as compared to this year?
Face-to-face
The library faculty identified issues with the assessment tool, but continued to use it for another year to determine
whether patterns could be seen with students. The fact that the average score went up 10 points does not have
much of an impact on the teaching librarians, and they will be using a different tool that they hope is more accurate
in measuring student retention of information literacy skills.
In terms of content, the student responses are generally the same as last year, in terms of what they know and
what still confuses them about information literacy. However, librarians believe this is more a weakness of the
assessment tool and when it is administered then truly reliable data about their students.
Online
N/A. This was the first year of doing an online assessment.
Overall
See above.


What strategies will you employ over the next year to improve teaching and
learning in the area?
Face-to-face
The first thing librarians will change for next year's assessment is the tool--they have serious issues with it (noted
above) and think it does not adequately test the knowledge of the students. Assessing students with a one-shot
information literacy class is difficult, but it could be better assessed than the current methods. Librarians will work
with a few targeted faculty to assess student papers (like in ENG 111 and 112) in classes they have both taught for
and not taught for, to see how the students incorporate information literacy skills into their research and comparing
those results. Having a better partnership with faculty is key to improving our assessment skills. However, until
information literacy is more seamlessly integrated into the curriculum, this will always be a challenge to do. Having
hard data showing that our students need these skills which cannot be sufficiently provided in one-shot sessions is
the first step.
Online
It will be a requirement that whatever assessment we choose for our classes will be required if we are to be
embedded in online classes. Having the assessment be optional is not helpful when determining whether students
in online classes are having their information literacy needs met (the data below leads to "no", but there isn't quite
enough data to support it). As librarians become more comfortable being embedded in online classes, they will
learn both their limits and access to students and how best to provide instruction to them, which is more
challenging online than in person.
Overall
Partnering more with faculty, both in-person and online, is the key to improving student success with information
literacy. Developing those partnerships takes time, but librarians can provide a unique service to faculty by
assessing information resources in papers and speeches.
Other comments about the assessment:
Face-to-face
Online
Overall
Assessing one-shot library instruction is always challenging because by its very nature it is not integrated into the
curriculum. Trying to make it accessible and relevant to students is an ongoing process that requires partnership
with teaching faculty. However, by developing a plan t o align courses to ACRL (Association of College and
Research Libraries) Standards and developing assessments that test those standards, librarians can get a more
accurate depiction of how our students are learning. Partnering with faculty (such as creating library liaisons with
English class chairs like ENG 111/112/113) to assess student papers for appropriate use of library resources,
continuing to embed more librarians into online classes and expanding our tutorials and services for online
students, and exploring more effective assessment tools will be just a few steps the library instruction staff will take
to improve information literacy.
Please add all your data below (to include Face-to-face/online/overall classes):

SEATED CLASSES Results
Number of students assessed: 312
Number of students meeting assessment: 203
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 65%

ONLINE CLASSES Results
Number of students assessed: 62
Number of students meeting assessment: 32
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 52%

OVERALL Results
Number of students assessed: 374
Number of students meeting assessment: 235
Percentage of students meeting assessment: 63%

NOTE: Complete summary of data in Appendix



              The College DID NOT MEET the Information Literacy
                                                          Goal.
APPENDIX
 INCLUDES RUBRICS AND DATA SUMMARIES
Goal One: Reading

Assessment Data for RED 090 Final Exam

Section   Section   Section   Section    Section   Section   Section   Section   Section
4         13        14        16         17        25        27        84        70
                                                                       online    online
   72       80        80        81         83        77        75          63      91
   87       92        90        90         71        65        88          73      91
   54       86        88        92         83        88        84          67      87
   54       84        77        71         91        79        88          73      80
   73       78        67        73         66        82        88          67      91
   90       88        88        90         64        68        82          61      78
   78       88        70        88         85        86        94          70      73
   72       90        67        73         85        73        90          66      78
   84       90        88        83         74        75        80          76      82
   65       82        90        66         80        78        55          71      73
   86       84        90        88         70        61        90          57      73
   78       80        80        90         75        83        88          62      91
   72       90        90        68         82        72        82          73      91
   73       94        88        88         68        69        72          45
   70       78        75        80         88        72        96          88
   83       86        90        88         80        91        90          71
   57       78        81        80         89        78        88          75
            88        86        75         76        79        89          77
            88        73        70         71        76        90
                                92         81        69        79
                                88         43        60        82
                                88                   81        86
                                                     71
                                                     60
GOAL TWO: COMMUNICATION

    A. Oral Communication

         Assessed in COM 110 and COM 231




Oral Communication – COM 110 Introduction to Communication
Oral Communication Scores by Coders
Blue scores: Face-to-face (COM 110)
Red scores: Distance Learning (COM 110)
Note: All distance learning classes are taught by fulltime COM faculty


Code1    Coder2     Coder3     Code4     Code5      Coder6     Coder7    Coder8   Coder9
5        2          5          3         3                     4         5
3        3          4          3         4                     3         4
4        2          5          2         3                     5         3
5        3          4          2         3                     4         4
3        2          3          2         4                     3         3
3        3          5          3         4                     4         4
5        2          5          2                                         4
4                   4          3                                         3
3                              2
4                              2
3                              2
2                              2
3                              2
4
4
3
4
3
18       7          8          13        6          0          6         8        0
-1       -4         -0         -9        -0                    -0        -0




Number of COM 110 students evaluated or assessed: 66
Number of students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score (3 or higher): 52
Percentage of students met the benchmark: 78.79 %

Number of students in Distance Learning: 12
Number of DL students scoring at least the minimum benchmark score (3 or higher): 11
Percentage of Distance Learning students made benchmark: 91.67%

Number in face to face classes assessed: 54
Number scoring 3 or more: 41
Percentage of face to face students made benchmark: 74.93%




Goal 2 - Communication 2010-11

Oral Communication –COM 231 Public Speaking
Oral Communication Scores by Coders
Blue scores: Face-to-face (COM 110)
Red scores: Distance Learning (COM 110)
Note: All distance learning classes are taught by fulltime COM faculty

Code1    Coder2     Coder3     Coder4    Coder5     Coder6     Coder7    Coder8   Coder9
         4          4                    3          3          3         4        3
         2          5                    4          3          3         4        2
         4          4                    3          3          4         4        3
         3          5                    4          5          3         4        3
         2          4                    3          3          4         4        3
         4          5                    3          4          4         2        5
         3          3                    3          3          3         4        2
                    5                    4          3          3                  3
                                                    4          3                  4
                                                    4                             3
                                                    3                             3
                                                    5                             4
                                                    4                             3
                                                    4                             3
                                                                                  4

         7          8                    8          14         9         7        15
         -2         -0                   -0         -0         -0        -1       -2




Total number of COM 231 students evaluated or assessed: 68
Number in classroom scoring 3 or higher: 63
Percentage of students in classroom made benchmark: 92.65%

Red: Number of students in distance learning: 19
Number in distance learning scoring 3 or higher: 19
Percentage of students in distance learning made benchmark:

Total number in face to face classes: 49
Number scoring 3 or more: 44
Percentage of face to face students made benchmark: 89.8%
     B. Written Communication


ENG 111 data

Meet Benchmark        Did Not Meet Benchmark   Total
19                       4                       23
17                       1                       18
16                       3                       19
16                       4                       20
16                       3                       19
15                       2                       17
11                       7                       18
16                       4                       20
8                        3                       11
9                        2                       11
143                      33                      176/81%
Face to Face Totals
126                     28                      154/82%
Online Totals
17                      5                       22/77%
Goal Three: Mathematics
Raw Data - Math Goals – 2010/2011

MAT161

Section (Coded)         Online    2     3    4    5
Number of Students      15       18    21   21   22
Mastered Goal 1         14       16    19   21   18
Mastered Goal 2         12       16    20   20   20
Mastered Goal 3         12       15    14   18   19
Mastered All Goals      12       12    13   18   16

Section (Coded)          6         7    8    9
Number of Students      22       27    29   32
Mastered Goal 1         22       26    25   25
Mastered Goal 2         20       25    24   22
Mastered Goal 3         20       26    24   20
Mastered All Goals      18       23    20   15

MAT115

Merged Data
Number of Students      196
Mastered All Goals      148
Goal Four: Computer Skills


                   CIS 110 & 111 - All Sections
              Teaching        Total  # Passing  % Passing
 Section       Method        Tested Benchmark Benchmark
 110-55     seated                23         16     69.6%
 110-26     seated                27         19     70.4%
 111-09     seated                23         20     87.0%
 110-44     seated                22         18     81.8%
 111-40     seated                21         18     85.7%
 110-05     seated                18         14     77.8%
 110-88     online                99         95     96.0%
 110-84     online               108         92     85.2%
 111-88     online                74         68     91.9%
 110-34     seated                25         22     88.0%
            Total All            440        382     86.8%



                    CIS 110 - Seated Sections
              Teaching        Total  # Passing  % Passing
 Section       Method        Tested Benchmark Benchmark
 110-55     seated                23         16     69.6%
 110-26     seated                27         19     70.4%
 110-44     seated                22         18     81.8%
 110-05     seated                18         14     77.8%
 110-34     seated                25         22     88.0%
        0   Total - Online        90         67     74.4%



                    CIS 110 - Online Sections
              Teaching        Total  # Passing  % Passing
 Section       Method        Tested Benchmark Benchmark
 110-88     online                99         95     96.0%
 110-84     online               108         92     85.2%




            Total - Online       207              187   90.3%
                       CIS 111 – Seated
            Teaching        Total  # Passing  % Passing
Section      Method        Tested Benchmark Benchmark
111-09    seated                23         20     87.0%
111-40    seated                21         18     85.7%
          Total - Seated        44         38     86.4%

                  CIS 111 - seated sections
            Teaching        Total  # Passing  % Passing
Section      Method        Tested Benchmark Benchmark
111-88    online                74         68     91.9%

          Total - Seated        74            68   91.9%
Goal Five: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving



    A. COM 231 – Public Speaking
Blue scores: Face-to-face (COM 231)
Red scores: Distance Learning (COM 231)
Note: All distance learning classes are taught by fulltime COM faculty

 Coder       Coder      Coder      Coder     Coder      Coder      Coder
   2           3          5          6         7          8          9

    4          4          3          3          2          4         2
    2          4          3          2          2          4         3
    4          3          3          4          3          3         3
    2          5          4          4          2          3         2
    2          5          3          3          3          4         2
    5          5          3          4          3          3         4
    2          4          3          5          2          3         3
               5          3          3          3                    3
                                     4          4                    3
                                     5                               2
                                     4                               3
                                     5                               4
                                     3                               3
                                     5                               3
                                                                     3




    7           8          8        14          9          7         15
   -4          -0         -0        -1         -4         -0         -4



Number of speeches assessed: 68
Speeches receiving score of 3 or higher: 55
Percentage of speeches receiving a score of 3 or higher: 80.88%
Red: Number of students in distance learning: 19
Number in distance learning scoring 3 or higher: 18
Percentage of students in distance learning made benchmark: 94.74%

Number of students in face to face classes: 49
Number in face to face scoring 3 or higher: 37
Percentage of students in face to face made benchmark: 75.51%
  B. ENG 112 – Argument Based Research


                    English 112 - All Sections
             Teaching         Total     # Passing      % Passing
Section      Method          Tested Benchmark         Benchmark
     90   online                   8              3        37.5%
     91   online                  15              9        60.0%
     84   online                  18            11         61.1%
     89   online                  22            15         68.2%
     66   seated                   5              5       100.0%
     75   seated                  17            13         76.5%
     40   seated                  25            24         96.0%
     42   seated                  15            14         93.3%
     79   seated                  13            10         76.9%
     44   seated                  22            15         68.2%
          Total All             160            119         74.4%



                 English 112 - online sections
             Teaching        Total     # Passing       % Passing
Section      Method         Tested    Benchmark       Benchmark
     90   online                  8              3         37.5%
     91   online                15               9         60.0%
     84   online                18             11          61.1%
     89   online                22             15          68.2%
          Total - Online        63             38          60.3%

                 English 112 - seated sections
             Teaching        Total     # Passing       % Passing
Section      Method         Tested    Benchmark       Benchmark
     66   seated                  5              5        100.0%
     75   seated                17             13          76.5%
     40   seated                25             24          96.0%
     42   seated                15             14          93.3%
     79   seated                13             10          76.9%
     44   seated                22             15          68.2%
          Total - Seated        97             81          83.5%
 C. PSY 150 – General Psychology


                 Psychology 150 - All Sections
             Teaching      Total       # Passing     % Passing
Section      Method       Tested Benchmark          Benchmark
     85   online               18              11        61.1%
     92   online               16              13        81.3%
     87   online               17              13        76.5%
     93   online               16              13        81.3%
      1   seated               40              30        75.0%
      5   seated               44              32        72.7%
      6   seated               38              37        97.4%
      7   seated               21              14        66.7%
     18   seated               19              18        94.7%
     70   seated               16              11        68.8%
   464    Total All           245             192        78.4%



               Psychology 150 - online sections
             Teaching       Total     # Passing      % Passing
Section      Method        Tested    Benchmark      Benchmark
     85   online               18             11         61.1%
     92   online               16             13         81.3%
     87   online               17             13         76.5%
     93   online               16             13         81.3%
   357    Total - Online       67             50         74.6%

               Psychology 150 - seated sections
             Teaching       Total     # Passing      % Passing
Section      Method        Tested    Benchmark      Benchmark
      1   seated               40             30         75.0%
      5   seated               44             32         72.7%
      6   seated               38             37         97.4%
      7   seated               21             14         66.7%
     18   seated               19             18         94.7%
     70   seated               16             11         68.8%
   107    Total - Seated      178            142         79.8%
 D. ECO 251 – Principles of Microeconomics


ECO 251 Overall Results       Column1      Column2        Column3              Column4
                          Teaching        Total
       Section            Method          Tested     # Passing Benchmark % Passing Benchmark
          2                    seated         19              18                 94.70%
          4                    seated         24              19                 79.20%
          5                    seated         21              20                 95.20%
          7                    seated         21              15                 71.40%
         11                    seated         16              11                 68.80%
         15                    seated         19              11                 57.90%
         82                    online         15               9                 60.00%
         83                    online         17              12                 70.60%
         84                    online         15               9                 60.00%
         85                    online         22              18                 73.20%
                              Total All       189             142                75.13%
Goal Six: Cultural Awareness
    A. COM 110 – Introduction to Communications


COM 110 data
Distance Classes
Section #  10           9          8        7 met assessment 6 or less Total number of students
           Correct    correct    correct correct
110-80&84*      6          6        19      8      39               19        58
110-83          3          6        2       1      12                1        13
110-85          3          2        1       1      7                 0         7
110-86          1          6        1       1      9                 0         9
110-87          5          4        0       0      9                 0         9
Total          18        24        23      11     76                 20       96

                                                                        Number met assessment:           76
                                                                        Total number assessed:            96
* combined sections                                                     Percentage met assessment:       75%
Note: First short session classes not included



On Campus Classes
Section #   10 correct 9 correct 8 correct   7 correct met assessment   6 or less Total number of students
110-01            6        7        7        4         24               0         24
110-02            2        4        2        7         15               6         21
110-03            6        4        1        6         17               2         19
110-04            4        6        3        0         13               5         18
110-05            4        6        5        3         18               4         22
110-06            3        7        1        3         14               3         17
110-07            1        2        2        3         8                2         10
110-08            2        3        6        3         14               3         17
110-09            2        3        4        2         11               7         18
110-10            0        5        6        2         13               7         20
110-11            6        2        5        3         16               1         17
110-12            5        5        1        4         15               6         21
110-13            5        8        1        0         14               2         16
110-14            0        5        3        2         10               6         16
110-21            2        6        4        5         17               2         19
110-22            8        5        4        2         19               4         23
110-23            13       5        1        0         19               0         19
110-24            12       2        0        0         14               0         14
110-25            19       0        0        0         19               0         19
110-28            1        8        3        2         14               3         17
110-29            5        3        2        1         11               10        21
110-30            7        5        5        2         19               1         20
110-31            7        3        5        1        16                1        17
110-32            10       3        2        4        19                3        22
110-33            11       4        1        3        19                3        22
110-34            4        5        0        4        13                5        18
110-35            1        1        6        2        10                8        18
110-41 & 41*      3        10       8        5        26                11       37
110-42            4        5        6        2        17                1        18
110-44            1        0        2        3        6                 5        11
110-50            2        0        3        2        7                 8        15
110-51            1        3        2        1        7                 5        12
110-52            4        1        2        2        9                 4        13
                  161      136      103      83       483               128      611

*combined section


OVERALL:
Number met assessment:     483
Total number assessed:      611
Percentage met assessment: 79%




    B. SPA 112 – INTERMEDIATE SPANISH



FACE TO FACE

After collecting data from eight Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections 01, 02, 03, 04, 36, 47, 48 and 49 as of
2/20/11:
Number of students tested: 118
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 103
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 15
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 87.29%




Grade Report      Sect. 01 Sect. 02 Sect. 03 Sect. 04 Sect. 36 Sect. 47 Sect. 48 Sect. 49

                  90.00 90.00       90.00    70.00    90.00  70.00 90.00 70.00
                  90.00 80.00       90.00    70.00    70.00  70.00 70.00 90.00
                  80.00 60.00       100.00   90.00    100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00
                  90.00 70.00       80.00    100.00   100.00 70.00 100.00 90.00
                 100.00 100.00      100.00   60.00    100.00 90.00 80.00   70.00
                  60.00 90.00       90.00    90.00    90.00  90.00 80.00   90.00
                  70.00 90.00       60.00    100.00   90.00  90.00 90.00 100.00
                  60.00    60.00     100.00 20.00        90.00     90.00   70.00      100.00
                           60.00     100.00 100.00       90.00     90.00   90.00       65.00
                           70.00     100.00 100.00       90.00     70.00   80.00
                          100.00       80.00 90.00       100.00    80.00   90.00
                           60.00      100.00 70.00       60.00     80.00   90.00

                             90.00       80.00   70.00   100.00 90.00      90.00
                             80.00       90.00           90.00  80.00       40.00
                             60.00       60.00           90.00  80.00       90.00
                                                         90.00  60.00       80.00
                                                         80.00 100.00       90.00
                                                                80.00       80.00
                                                                80.00
                                                                90.00
                                                                90.00
                                                                80.00
                                                                80.00

Average          80.00       77.33   88.00       79.23    89.41    82.61      82.78     86.11

# tested           8   15     15     13                    17         23       18          9        Total    118
 per class:
# who scored       6   10     13     11                    16         22       17              8    Total    103
 70% or higher:
# who scored        2    5     2      2                     1         1         1              1    Total      15
 less than 70%
% students who 75.00% 66.67% 86.67% 84.62%                94.12%     95.65%     94.44%     88.89%
87.29%
 scored 70% or higher:

ONLINE

After collecting data from two Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections , 84 (online), and 85 (online) as of 2/20/11:
Number of students tested: 33
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 26
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 7
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 78.79%



Grade Report      Sect. 84    Sect. 85
                   online     online
                   75.00       75.00
                    69.00    100.00
                  100.00       94.00
                    94.00      63.00
                  100.00       69.00
                    88.00      88.00
                   100.00      81.00
                    81.00     100.00
                   100.00 100.00
                    88.00 100.00
                  100.00    75.00
                  100.00    81.00
                    63.00   75.00
                    69.00 100.00
                   100.00 75.00
                    63.00   69.00
                           100.00

Average               86.88    85.00

# tested per class:    16        17             Total:   33

# who scored 70% 12              14             Total:   26
 70% or higher:
# who scored        4             3             Total:    7
  less than 70%:
% who scored     75.00%         82.35%                        78.79%
 70% or higher

OVERALL

After collecting data from ten Elementary Spanish II (SPA 112) sections 01, 02, 03, 04, 36, 47, 48, 49, 84 (online),
and 85 (online) as of 2/20/11:
Number of students tested: 151
Number of students who scored 70% or higher: 129
Number of students who scored less than 70%: 22
Percentage of students scored 70% or higher: 85.43%

Grade Report    Sect. 01      Sect. 02 Sect. 03 Sect. 04 Sect. 36 Sect. 47 Sect. 48 Sect. 49 Sect. 84 Sect. 85
OVERALL                                                                                       online online
Report 2010-2011
                90.00         90.00    90.00    70.00    90.00    70.00    90.00    70.00     75.00      75.00
                90.00         80.00    90.00    70.00    70.00    70.00    70.00    90.00     69.00    100.00
                80.00         60.00    100.00   90.00    100.00   100.00   90.00    100.00   100.00      94.00
                 90.00        70.00    80.00    100.00   100.00   70.00    100.00   90.00     94.00      63.00
                 100.00       100.00   100.00   60.00    100.00   90.00    80.00    70.00    100.00      69.00
                 60.00        90.00    90.00    90.00    90.00    90.00    80.00    90.00     88.00      88.00
                 70.00        90.00    60.00    100.00   90.00    90.00    90.00    100.00   100.00      81.00
                 60.00        60.00    100.00   20.00    90.00    90.00    70.00    100.00     81.00    100.00
2/20/2011                     60.00    100.00   100.00   90.00    90.00    90.00    65.00    100.00     100.00
                              70.00    100.00   100.00   90.00    70.00    80.00               88.00    100.00
                              100.00   80.00    90.00    100.00   80.00    90.00             100.00      75.00
                              60.00    100.00   70.00    60.00    80.00    90.00             100.00      81.00
                              90.00    80.00    70.00    100.00   90.00    90.00              63.00      75.00
                              80.00    90.00              90.00    80.00   40.00               69.00    100.00
                              60.00    60.00             90.00     80.00   90.00             100.00      75.00
                                                          90.00    60.00   80.00               63.00     69.00
                                                       80.00   100.00 90.00                      100.00
                                                               80.00 80.00
                                                               80.00
                                                               90.00
                                                               90.00
                                                               80.00
                                                               80.00

Average          80.00    77.33     88.00    79.23     89.41    82.61   82.78   86.11    86.88     85.00



# tested per      8    15       15    13     17      23      18                   9       16        17     Total
         153
 class:
# who scored 70% 6     10       13     11    16      22      17                   8       12        14     Total
         131
 or higher:
# who scored       2     5       2      2     1       1        1                  1        4         3     Total
22
 less than 70%:
% who scored 70%:75.00% 66.67% 86.67% 84.62% 94.12% 95.65% 94.44%               88.89%   75.00%     82.35%
         85.43%
 or higher

          # total students tested:  151
          # students who scored 70% or higher: 129
          # students who scored less than 70%:    22
          % student who met the goal =     85.43%
Goal Seven: Social and Behavioral Science

  A. HIS 131 – American History

 Overall Data for all Sections:

          19            20   19   20   18   20   20   20   20   15
          17            20   19   20   18   20   20   18   17   14
          17            20   17   20   17   20   20   18   16
          15            20   17   20   17   20   20   17   14
          14            20   16   19   17   20   20   17   14
          13            20   14   19   16   20   20   16   13
          12            19   13   19   15   20   20   15
          11            19   13   18   13   19   20   15
          9             18   13   17   13   19   20   15
          9             18   12   17   13   19   20   15
          9             18   12   16   12   19   20   14
          8             18   12   16   12   18   20   12
                        17   11   16   11   17   20   11
                        17   11   15   11   15   20   9
                        17   11   14   11   15   20
                        16   11   13   11        20
                        16   11   12   10        19
                        14   11   12   9         19
                        12   10   11   9         16
                             9    9    9
                             7    8    9
                                       9
                                       8
                                       8
 w/ less than 12
 points                                8
 TOTAL Ss = 159                        8
 Passing (12+) = 122                   7
 Passing % = 76.7%                     7
                                       7
                                       7
                                       3


 Seated Classes
        19           20    19        20
        17           20    19        20
        17           20    17        20
        15           20    17        20
        14           20    16        19
        13           20    14        19
        12           19    13        19
        11           19    13        18
        9            18    13        17
        9            18    12        17
        9            18    12        16
        8            18    12        16
                     17    11        16
                     17    11        15
                     17    11        14
                     16    11        13
                     16    11        12
                     14    11        12
                     12    10        11
                           9         9
                           7         8



w/ less than 12
points
TOTAL Ss = 73
Passing (12+) = 56
Passing % = 76.7%


Online/Teleweb


        18            20        20        20   20   15
        18            20        20        18   17   14
        17            20        20        18   16
        17            20        20        17   14
        17            20        20        17   14
        16            20        20        16   13
        15            20        20        15
        13           19   20   15
        13           19   20   15
        13           19   20   15
        12           19   20   14
        12           18   20   12
        11           17   20   11
        11           15   20   9
        11           15   20
        11                20
        10                19
        9                 19
        9                 16
        9
        9
        9
        8
        8
        8
        8
        7
        7
        7
        7
        3


w/ less than 12
points
TOTAL Ss = 86
Passing (12+) = 66
Passing % = 76.7%
  B. SOC 210 – Introduction to Sociology

                                                                 SOC 213-85   SOC 210-
            SOC 210-06   SOC 83 & 90   SOC 213-87   SOC 213-13     & 87         93

             Total 22     Total 15      Total 15     Total 8      Total 18    Total 17
1 point         7            3             1           1             5           3
2 points        5            7             1           4             8           2
3 points        5            2             9           3             5           8
0 points        5            3             4                                     4




  Total
Number         95
  2 and
 above         59
made 2 or
 above .       62%
  Goal         70%
Goal Eight: Natural Sciences

OVERALL Results

Number of students assessed: 249
Number of students met assessment: 206
Percentage of students met assessment: 83%



ONLINE Classes

Section                            Number meeting assessment        Number assessed
                  1                         14                          21
                  2                         11                          20
                  3                         12                          15
                  4                         17                          19
                  5                         10                          10
                  6                         15                          15
                                            79                         100
    Overall Percentage meeting
            assessment:                                                               79%

          SEATED CLASSES

                                       Number meeting                 Number
             SECTION                     assessment                   assessed
                 7                            16                         20
                 8                            18                         18
                 9                            17                         19
                10                            21                         22
                11                            15                         17
                12                            21                         24
                13                            10                         16
                14                            9                          13
                                             127                        149
                                   Percentage meeting assessment:                      88%
Goal Nine: Humanities and Fine Arts

    A. ART 111 – Art Appreciation

Section   90-100   80-89   70-79   60-69     50-59   Below 50
1         5        4               1
2         11       3
5 &6      27       7       5       1         1       1
85*       10       4       5                 3
86*       16       4                                 2
87&88*    16       6       6       2                 2
totals 85          28      16      4         4       5

* indicates online sections.

    B. MUS 110 – Music Appreciation

MUS 110 fall 2010
Section   Total    100     90      80        70      60      50      40        30   20
01        37       2       4       10        6       4       6       5         -    -
02        42       1       7       14        11      6       2       -         1    -
03        37       -       4       8         11      9       3       1         -    1
05        17       3       1       4         2       4       1       -         2    -
06        22       12      3       2         5       -       -       -         -    -
07        12       4       4       3         1       -       -       -         -    -
20        17       1       1       1         4       2       4       3         1    -
60        25       3       6       6         5       4       1       -         -    -
85&87     23       5       11      4         1       2       -       -         -    -
Totals    232      31      41      52        46      31      17      9         4    1


Sections 85 and 87 were online sections. One section, section 63, did not administer the
assessment.


    C. HUM 130 – Myth in Human Culture

Data for Traditional and Online Combined:
Section Passed with 3 or higher    Failed with less than 3   Percent Passing
03         19                              8                      70
82       18                             10                           64
83       18                               4                          82
84       17                               3                          85
85       10                               8                          56

Totals    82                            33                          71
Data for Traditional Only:
Section Passed with 3 or higher   Failed with less than 3   Percent Passing
03       19                             8                           70

Totals   19                             8                           70

Data for Online Only:
Section Passed with 3 or higher   Failed with less than 3   Percent Passing
82       18                            10                           64
83       18                             4                           82
84       17                             3                           85
85       10                             8                           56

Totals   63                            25                           72




Goal Ten: Information Literacy

In Class
Class      #students Date    Avg.        # met     % met
ENG 112-77      14     3-Oct  5.8          7        50%
COM 110-30      22     4-Oct  5.8          13       59%
COM 231-06      14     5-Oct  5.7          9        64%
COM 231-11      15     5-Oct  5.4          6        40%
ENG 111         18     5-Oct  5.7          11       61%
ENG 111-18      19     5-Oct  5.2          9        47%
COM 231-04      16     7-Oct  5.6          8        50%
COM 231-08      15     7-Oct  5.8          10       67%
ENG 111         21     14-Oct 6            12       57%
ENG 111         18     14-Oct 6.8          14       78%
ENG 114-50      18     19-Oct 5.4          9        50%
COM 110-31      19     25-Oct 6.1          13       68%
ENG 111         20     27-Oct 6.7          16       80%
ENG 111-52      18     3-Nov 6.4           14       78%
ENG 111         17     4-Nov 5.9           11       65%
ENG 111         14     4-Nov 6.3           12       86%
ENG 111         15     11-Nov 7            12       80%
COM 110-32      19     25-Oct 6.5          17       89%




ONLINE with Embedded Librarian (*note: no embedded librarian in ENG 111-77, taught by Library Services
administrative staff)
62 students assed, 52% met the benchmark.


Class          #students            avg.    # met   % met
CJC 112-82        2        online     4       0      0%
CJC 211-82        2        online     4.5     1      50%
COM 231-86        4        online     5.5     2      50%
COM 231-87        2        online     5.5     1      50%
ENG 111-77*       19       online     8.1     19     100%
ENG 111-96        3        online     4.5     1      33%
ENG 113-84        5        online     3.9     0      0%
ENG 113-89        13       online     5       4      31%
ENG 231-wbl1      7        online     4       3      43%
NUR 111-01        5        online     4.9     1      20%

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:8/18/2012
language:
pages:100