Phil_MVC_2011

					                         ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW
                                         Unit: Philosophy
                                 Please give the full title of the unit/discipline


                            Contact Person: Nick Sinigaglia
                                       Due: May 15, 2011
                 Please send an electronic copy to the email address below

                                               doi@mvc.edu
Please give this file the name of your discipline using the following format: discipline_apr.doc. For example,
                                               geography_apr.doc




                        Web Resources: http://www.rccdfaculty.net/pages/programreview.jsp


                                                        1
                                                          Annual Program Review Plan


The Unit Plan is conducted by each unit on each campus and consists of an analysis of changes within the unit as well as significant new resource needs for staff,
resources, facilities, and equipment. It should be submitted or renewed every year by May 15th in anticipation of budget planning for the fiscal year, which
begins July 1 of the following calendar year.

Extensive data sets have been distributed to all Department Chairs and are linked to the Program Review website (password 11111). Chairs have received training
on the use of these data sets. Please consult with your Department Chair or Raj Bajaj for assistance interpreting the data relevant to your discipline. Note that you
are only required to mention data relevant to your analysis or requests. Should you wish assistance with research analysis please fill out the form at
http://academic.rcc.edu/ir/requestform.html and you will be contacted to schedule a time to discuss analysis of your data. You may also request a labor market
analysis using this form. Please utilize these data or data collected by your discipline to assess your goals and as rationale for resource requests.

The questions on the subsequent pages are intended to assist you in planning for your unit. If there is no change from your prior report, you may simply
resubmit the information in that report (or any portion that remains constant) from the prior year.

The forms that follow are separated into pages for ease of distribution to relevant offices, councils and committees. Please keep the pages separated if possible
(though part of the same electronic file), with the headers as they appear, and be sure to include your unit, campus, contact person (this may change from topic
to topic) and date on each page submitted. Don’t let formatting concerns slow you down. If you have difficulty with formatting, contact the dean of instruction.
Simply add responses to those questions that apply and forward the document to the Administrative Support Center with a request to format it appropriately.

If you cannot identify in which category your request belong or if you have complex-funding requests please schedule an appointment with the office of the
college’s Vice President of Business Services. They will assist you with estimating the cost of your requests. For simple requests such as the cost of a staff
member, please e-mail the Vice President of Academic Affairs. It is vital to include cost estimates in your request forms. Each college uses its own prioritization
system. Inquiries regarding that process should be directed to your Vice President.




                                                                                 2
                                                                Instructional Unit Plan

                                                                   Trends and Relevant Data

1. Has there been any change in the status of your unit? (if not, skip to #2)

        a. Has your unit shifted departments? No

        b. Have any new certificates or complete programs been created by your unit? No

        c. Have activities in other units impacted your unit? For example, a new nursing program could cause greater demand for life science
           courses. There is a new Medical Technology Certificate program in development at my college, and the instructor in charge of
           developing it is interested in incorporating a course in bioethics. If the program is implemented, I would likely have a better
           opportunity than I do now of getting such a course off the ground. I have also been in contact with Phil Galicia, Biology, about
           the possibility of team teaching this course.

Have there been any significant changes in enrollment, retention, success rates, or environmental demographics that impact your discipline (See
Dataset provided to all chairs)? If there are no significant* changes in your unit’s opinion, say “None” and skip to question #3. *Your unit may define
“significant change” in this context for itself. If your unit thinks it’s a “significant change” then for purposes of this review please note it. Available courses in
philosophy at MVC continue to fail to meet demand, with most courses enrolled above cap. Retention averages 85%, with success at 70%.
MVC’s only full-time faculty member in the discipline participated in the district’s Study Abroad program to Beijing, China Spring
semester 2011, and with the assistance of available associate faculty we were able to offer a selection of courses comparable to Spring 2010.

2. In reviewing data on enrollment management, are your unit’s planning changes to improve on any aspects of enrollment management (ex:
   persistence, scheduling patterns, etc.)? If your plan necessitates resource changes make sure those needs are reflected in the applicable resource
   request sections. As is the case with virtually all other courses at our college, philosophy courses over the academic year continued to be
   extremely impacted. I overenrolled several of my courses, sometimes by as many as 15 students. Though I would of course prefer to
   have class sizes in the range of 20-30 students, I do not experience any significant struggles teaching courses with ~60 students relative to
   classes with ~45 students. Since restricting enrollment to 20-30 students is not feasible, I am planning to continue to overenroll my
   courses as long as there is sufficient student demand and administration condones it. I am also, of course, interested in offering a larger
   number of courses in philosophy once the budget allows it.

3. If applicable, please report on the progress made on any previous goals your department/discipline had identified. We were successful in
   offering a satisfactory complement of courses in philosophy at MVC while I was away in Beijing for the Spring. I am continuing work
   with Phil Galicia on a team-taught course in Bioethics, tentatively scheduled for Spring 2012.


                                                                                  3
4. What is your unit’s mission statement? Through the study of seminal philosophical texts and discussion of their relevance to subjects of
   contemporary concern, the discipline aims to foster students’ ability to think, speak, and write both critically and clearly on a wide range
   of topics.

5. What are your departmental/discipline goals for the 2010-2011 academic year? As you develop your goals, please review and align with the
   strategies listed in the Moreno Valley College Strategic Plan. Please indicate if these are new goals or ongoing. What activities will your
   department/discipline pursue to meet these goals? What support does your department/discipline need for goal attainment? If applicable, please
   include the support indicated in the subsequent forms and/or include data to support the rationale. The discipline aims to maintain the current
   number of course offerings in philosophy. If the budget allows it, I would like to offer a regular Philosophy of Religion course in the
   Spring or Fall semester, as well as a Bioethics course in the Spring. Arranging to extend the diversity of courses available in the
   discipline while maintaining the total number of courses offered is the primary goal for the coming academic year.




                                                                         4
                                                               Instructional Unit Plan
                                                                   Human Resource Status


6. Complete the Faculty and Staff Employment Grid below. Please list full and part time faculty numbers in separate rows. Please list classified
   staff who are full and part time separately.


                                                                Faculty Employed in the Unit
                            Teaching Assignment (e.g. Math, English)                  Full-time faculty       Part-time faculty
                                                                                      (give number)           (give number)
                            Philosophy                                                1                       2




                                                           Classified Staff Employed in the Unit

                            Classified Employee Title (e.g. IDS, Lab Assistant)       Full-time staff (give   Part-time staff
                                                                                      number)                 (give number)




                                                                                  5
7. Staff Needs
                                                    NEW OR REPLACEMENT STAFF (Faculty or Classified)1
                                                                                                                                                         Indicate (N) =
              List Staff Positions Needed for Academic Year___2011-12________________                                                                     New or (R) =
                                                                                                                                                                                  Annual
Please justify and explain each faculty request based on rubric criteria for your campus. Place titles on                                                 Replacement
                                                                                                                                                                                  TCP*
                                     list in order (rank) or importance.


1. None
Reason:

2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:

* TCP = “Total Cost of Position” for one year is the cost of an average salary plus benefits for an individual. New positions (not replacement positions) also require
space and equipment. Please speak with your campus Business Officer to obtain accurate cost estimates. Please be sure to add related office space, equipment and other
needs for new positions to the appropriate form and mention the link to the position. Please complete this form for “New” Classified Staff only. All replacement staff
must be filled per Article I, Section C of the California School Employees Association (CSEA) contract.




1
    If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.



                                                                                               6
8. Equipment (excluding technology) Needs Not Covered by Current Budget2
                                                                                                                               *Indicate whether                 Annual TCO**
    List Equipment or Equipment Repair Needed for Academic Year__2011-12_____                                                Equipment is for (I) =
    Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as                                          Instructional or (N) =
                                                                                                                                                          Cost
                                                                                                                               Non-Instructional                                Total Cost of
     specific and as brief as possible. Place items on list in order (rank) or importance.                                         purposes
                                                                                                                                                           per     Number
                                                                                                                                                                                Request
                                                                                                                                                          item     Requested

1. None
Reason:

2.
Reason:

3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
* Instructional Equipment is defined as equipment purchased for instructional activities involving presentation and/or hands-on experience to enhance student
learning and skills development (i.e. desk for student or faculty use).
Non-Instructional Equipment is defined as tangible district property of a more or less permanent nature that cannot be easily lost, stolen or destroyed; but
which replaces, modernizes, or expands an existing instructional program. Furniture and computer software, which is an integral and necessary component
for the use of other specific instructional equipment, may be included (i.e. desk for office staff).
** TCO = “Total Cost of Ownership” for one year is the cost of an average cost for one year. Please speak with your campus Business Officer to obtain accurate cost
estimates. Please be sure to check with your department chair to clarify what you current budget allotment are. If equipment needs are linked to a position please be
sure to mention that linkage.

2
     If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.



                                                                                                7
9.        Technology (Computers and equipment attached to them)++ Needs Not Covered by Current Budget: 3
NOTE: Technology: excludes software, network infrastructure, furniture, and consumables (toner, cartridges, etc)

    Submitted by: Nick Sinigaglia                               Title: Associate Professor                                           Phone: x6173


                                                                                                                                                          Annual TCO*
                                                                                             Location
                                                                New (N)       Program:                     Is there         How
                                                                                               (i.e                                   Has it been
                                                                    or        New (N) or                   existing        many
      Priority         EQUIPMENT REQUESTED                      Replacem      Continuing
                                                                                              Office,
                                                                                                         Infrastructu      users
                                                                                                                                        repaired                  Number
                                                                                             Classroo                                 frequently?     Cost per    Requeste     Total Cost
                                                                 ent (R)?       (C) ?                         re?         served?
                                                                                             m, etc.)                                                  item          d         of Request
 1.
 Usage /         None
 Justification
 2.
 Usage /
 Justification
 3.
 Usage /
 Justification
 4.
 Usage /
 Justification
 5.
 Usage /
 Justification
    * TCO = “Total Cost of Ownership” for one year is the cost of an average cost for one year. Please speak with your campus Business Officer to obtain accurate
    cost estimates. Please be sure to check with your department chair to clarify what you current budget allotment are. If equipment needs are linked to a position
    please be sure to mention that linkage. Please speak with your Microsupport Computer Supervisor to obtain accurate cost estimates.
       ++Technology is a computer, equipment that attaches to a computer, or equipment that is driven by a computer.

Remember to keep in mind your campuses prioritization rubrics when justifying your request.




3
     If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “justification” section of this form.



                                                                                                 8
10.Facilities Needs Not Covered by Current Building or Remodeling Projects*4


                                                                                                                                                     Annual TCO*
              List Facility Needs for Academic Year___2011-12________________
        (Remodels, Renovations or added new facilities) Place items on list in order (rank) or
                                           importance.                                                                                             Total Cost of Request


1. None
Reason:

2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:

*Please contact your college VP of Business or your Director of Facilities, Operations and Maintenance to obtain an accurate cost estimate and to learn if the facilities
you need are already in the planning stages.



4
    If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.




                                                                                               9
11.Professional or Organizational Development Needs Not Covered by Current Budget*5

        List Professional Development Needs for Academic Year 2011-                                                                       Annual TCO*
 12_____________. Reasons might include in response to assessment findings or
  the need to update skills to comply with state, federal, professional organization
 requirements or the need to update skills/competencies. Please be as specific and                                                   Number
                                                                                                                                     Requested
as brief as possible. Some items may not have a cost per se, but reflect the need to                                   Cost per
                                                                                                                                                     Total Cost of Request
     spend current staff time differently. Place items on list in order (rank) or                                       item
                                     importance.

1. NONE
Reason:

2.
Reason:

3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:

*It is recommended that you speak with Human Resources or the Management Association to see if your request can be met with current budget.




5
    If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.

                                                                                              10
    12. Student Support Services (see definition below**) Services needed by your unit over and above what is currently provided by
                  student services at your college. These needs will be communicated to Student Services at your college6


                      List Student Support Services Needs for Academic Year___2011-12________________
    Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Not all needs
                                  will have a cost, but may require a reallocation of current staff time.

   1. 1. Tutoring Services for Phil 11
Reason: I would like to see more robust tutoring services available for students in Phil 11.
Reason: As this course satisfies the Critical Thinking Gen. Ed. requirement, it is a popular course, but students are often not as well
prepared for the work as are the typical students in other philosophy courses.
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
**Student Support Services include for example: tutoring, counseling, international students, EOPS, job placement, admissions and records, student assessment
(placement), health services, student activities, college safety and police, food services, student financial aid, and matriculation.




6
    If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.



                                                                                              11
13. Library Needs Not Covered by Current Library Holdings7 Needed by the Unit over and above what is currently provided. These
    needs will be communicated to the Library


                            List Library Needs for Academic Year_____2011-12______________
Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Place items on
                                                list in order (rank) or importance.

1. NONE
Reason:
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:




7
    If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.

                                                                                              12
15.       Learning Support Center Services Not Covered by Current budget*.

                 List Learning Support Center Services Needs                                              Total Cost of Requests
If your unit is responsible for running a learning support center such as the Writing and
 Reading Center, the Math Learning Center, Computer lab or similar learning support                                                  Ongoing
                                                                                            Cost per    Number                        (O) or
  center please address those needs here. These do not include laboratory components                                   Total Cost
                                                                                             item      Requested                     one-time
     that are required of a course. Place items on list in order (rank) or importance.                                              (OT) cost

1. NONE
Reason:


2.
Reason:

3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:

*It is recommended that you speak with your college IMC and/or Lab Coordinators to see if your request can be met within the current
budget and to get an estimated cost if new funding is needed.




                                                                            13
16.       OTHER NEEDS not covered by current budget8

                                                                                                                                          Annual TCO*
                   List Other Needs that do not fit elsewhere.
 Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Not all needs will have a cost, but
may require a reallocation of current staff time. Place items on list in order (rank)                                  Cost per      Number          Total Cost of Request
                                   or importance.                                                                       item         Requested

1. NONE
Reason:

2.
Reason:

3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:




8
    If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.

                                                                                              14
                                               MORENO VALLEY COLLEGE

                                           Student Learning Outcome Assessment
SLO assessment is now being done at the college level. You will find Moreno Valley College’s course level SLO reporting form on the
following page with examples of answers to the questions in italics. Erase or write over the italicized text. There is also a form with just the
questions. Fill out the form or insert completed forms into this document.

If faculty in your discipline have already written assessment reports using last year’s form, it is not necessary to re-enter the information,
simply attach your work. We ask that you encourage all faculty members within your department/discipline to complete the assessment
reporting form by the May 15 deadline.

If you are depending on information from the end of the semester for initial data or to complete your analysis, please fill out as much as you
can about your initial plan, investigation, and strategy. Report on your plans and provide us with an anticipated completion date.

If you have any questions regarding the assessment process or the reporting form, please contact Sheila Pisa at 951-571-6146/
sheila.pisa@mvc.edu or Carlos Tovares at 951-571-6162/carlos.tovares@mvc.edu. We are here to help.




                                                                      15
MVC                                                                       SLO REPORTNG FORM


                                            Nick Sinigaglia
                             Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report
                               Philosophy 10: Introduction to Philosophy
                                       Fall and Spring 2010-11

Tell us about the section(s) you assessed.
Daytime, face-to-face class on the Moreno Valley College campus (Fall). A Phil 10 course was taught
in Beijing, China Spring semester, but was not accessed, due to the very small number of students
enrolled.

Which SLO from the Course Outline of Record (COR) does this project assess?
Plan, organize, and write an argumentative essay that defends a
position on a philosophical question or problem.

Why did you choose that SLO?
Learning to defend a position in a philosophical essay is typically the most challenging task students
face in this course.

What specific topic does this project focus on?
Plato’s political philosophy as expressed in Republic.

Describe your inquiry strategy, including the assessment tool, scoring criteria, and timeline.
I have formulated an analytic rubric (see below) which I have begun distributing to students along with
the essay prompt. I return graded essays with sections of the rubric highlighted which I think best
describes the paper. By recording scores in the final 3 columns, those most relevant to the student’s
attempt to state and defend a position, I can track whether my efforts in class regarding this particular
SLO are making a difference. This past year I have developed and implemented an in-class activity
specifically designed to get students to think critically about Plato’s political recommendations, which I
hope will prepare them to a better job defending a position on this topic through argument.

What were the results? Based on the results, what goal was set?
Using 4=A range, 3=B range, 2=C range, 1=D range, 0=F, students in the single Fall Phil 10 course
averaged 3.3 for structure and organization, 3.4 for a clearly articulated thesis, and 2.9 for support for
claim. I find the first two scores acceptable for such a large course, where I am unable to offer as much
one-on-one attention as would like to, but the 2.9 for support should be improved to at least 3.0.

What modifications to the curriculum were made?
In the Fall 2011 semester, I am planning to distribute and discuss 3-4 classic evaluations of Plato’s
political philosophy to the students. This should assist them in seeing what a philosophical evaluation
of the position on the table looks like, first hand.

Describe your re-inquiry strategy, including the timeline and results.
I will use the same assessment tools, and see if the new readings make for more effective defensive
argumentation in the students’ papers.
How have you shared this project with your colleagues?
I have not discussed this particular project with my colleagues at the Norco and City colleges, though
we do discuss general assessment strategies together at least once a semester.
Next step and timeline. Will you assess this course again focusing on a different SLO? Will you
       MVC                                                                           SLO REPORTNG FORM


       assess a different version of this course-hybrid, online, evening, 8 week, etc.? Will you assess a
       different course? If so which SLO will you address?
       As I feel this is the SLO I feel I have the most difficulty in meeting, I will stick with its assessment for
       now, as far as Phil 10 is concerned.


                    Grading Rubric for Philosophy Essays
              Essay is Well                                        Essay is Well                                Essay is
                                                                                                                  Well
             Informed (50%)                                         Argued (50%)                                Written
    Conceptual        Development            Structure    Thesis or                     Support for Plus:
    Knowledge         and Support            and          Evaluative                    Claim and   Essay uses
                                                                                                    clear, direct,
    (20%)             (20%)                  Organization Claim                         Application grammatical
                                             (20%)         (20%)                        of Theory   prose; language
                                                                                        (20%)       is simple but
                                                                                                            not simplistic;
    Student shows     Students can           Essay is highly       Student goes         Student’s           diction makes
    command of        present, explain,      responsive to         beyond the mere      evaluative          meaning plain;
    important         and interpret the      each part of the      presentation of      claim(s) or         essay is proof-
    concepts (in      central                prompt, and/or        philosophical        thesis is           read carefully.
    their own         argument(s),           organizes its         theory,              convincingly
    words),           illustrating key       points around a       offering an          argued,
    explains them     points with            clear thesis.         evaluative           through sound
                                                                                                            Neutral:
    clearly, and      appropriate            The intent of         claim(s) and/or      reasoning,          Writing may be
                                                                                                            either too
    integrates this   quotations,            each paragraph        an original          consideration
                                                                                                            complicated or
    knowledge into    generally              and its relation      thesis that is       of examples,
                                                                                                            too simplistic;
A   an
    understanding
                      demonstrating a
                      command of the
                                             to other essay
                                             sections is
                                                                   defensible and
                                                                   of the
                                                                                        and
                                                                                        appropriate
                                                                                                            meaning is
                                                                                                            occasionally
    of the relevant   author’s               explicit.             appropriate          quotes.
                                                                                                            unclear; needs
    philosophical     arguments and the                            breadth and          Student can
                                                                                                            some proof
    problems or       development of                               depth.               apply theory
                                                                                                            reading.
    questions.        their thought.                                                    to everyday
                                                                                        situations and
                                                                                        anticipate
                                                                                        objections to
                                                                                        their claims.
    Student shows a   Student shows          Essay uses            Student              Student offers
    good              some minor             distinct units        presents a           an argument in
    understanding     misunderstandings      of thought,           fairly clear         defense of
    of key concepts   of the central         organized into        and defensible       their view;
    (in their own     arguments and the      paragraphs with       evaluative           though
    words), with      development of         specific and          claim or             support,
    one or two        the author’s           detailed topic        thesis, though       reasoning, and
B   minor             thought; use of        sentences; but        it could             the use of
    conceptual        quotes could be        relation between      improved in          examples or
    inconsistencies   improved.              paragraphs is         terms of             quotes may be
    or ambiguities.                          too often left        originality,         somewhat
                                             implicit.             breadth, or          incomplete or
                                                                   depth.               unconvincing.
    Student shows a   Student only           Essay has some        Student offers       Student’s           Minus:
    basic grasp of    partially              awkward               an evaluative        support for         Student tries
    some concepts,    develops the           transitions,          claim or             their claim(s)      too hard to be
    but sometimes     overall argument;      poorly organized      thesis; but it       is generally        “academic”, or
    fails to          some basic points      paragraphs, and       is either            unconvincing.       often uses
C   explain           left unsupported       some extraneous       unclear,             Quotes and          colloquialisms;
    concepts in own   or unexplained;        information;          difficult to         examples are        poor grammar,
    words, and/or     poor selection         parts of prompt       defend,              either              style results
    borrows wording   and integration        (or thesis) left      unoriginal           inappropriate,
       MVC                                                                        SLO REPORTNG FORM


    from the text     of quotations.       unaddressed.         (obvious), or      absent, or         in vague,
    or wording used                                             of unreasonable    overused           unclear
    in lecture.                                                 scope.             without            sentences.
                                                                                   adequate
                                                                                   explanation.       Worse:
                                                                                                      Meaning is
                                                                                                      frequently
    Student shows     Student digresses    Essay offers an      Student’s          Student merely     obscured by
    inadequate        often without        illogical            evaluative         offers quick       diction; many
    grasp of          proper               arrangement of       claim(s) or        opinion in         grammatical or
    concepts;         development;         ideas; entire        thesis is          place of           stylistic
    serious           serious              sections of          indefensible,      evaluation,        errors; needs
    omissions of      omissions; no        prompt (or           trivial, or        without            serious proof
    key concepts;     attempt made to      thesis) left         entirely vague;    adequate           reading.
D   does not use
    own words to
                      integrate
                      quotations.
                                           unaddressed.         student may
                                                                merely offer a
                                                                                   support;
                                                                                   reasoning may
    explain                                                     list of            be non-
    concepts.                                                   unsubstantiated    existent,
                                                                likes and          dogmatic, or
                                                                dislikes.          obviously
                                                                                   unsound.
    Student shows     Little or no         Essay offers         Student offers     Student offers
    almost no         development; may     incoherent           no real            no real
    critical          read like a list     paragraph            critical           argument in
    understanding     of disjointed        organization;        evaluation or      support of
    of central        facts or             suggests poor        thesis;            their
    concepts; many    misinformation;      planning or no       student’s          evaluative
F   important         shows no             serious attempt      critical           claim(s) or
    concepts not      familiarity with     at revision.         thoughts are       thesis.
    discussed at      text(s).                                  either non-
    all.                                                        existent or in
                                                                “rant” form.


                                                   Nick Sinigaglia
                                    Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report
                                      Philosophy 10: Introduction to Philosophy
                                              Fall and Spring 2010-11

       Tell us about the section(s) you assessed.
       1 daytime, face-to-face class on the Moreno Valley College campus (Fall). A Phil 10 course was taught
       in Beijing, China Spring semester, but was not accessed, due to the very small number of students
       enrolled.

       Which SLO from the Course Outline of Record (COR) does this project assess?
       Plan, organize, and write an argumentative essay that defends a
       position on a philosophical question or problem.

       Why did you choose that SLO?
       Learning to defend a position in a philosophical essay is typically the most challenging task students
       face in this course.

       What specific topic does this project focus on?
       Plato’s political philosophy as expressed in Republic.

       Describe your inquiry strategy, including the assessment tool, scoring criteria, and timeline.
       I have formulated an analytic rubric (see bottom of document) that I began distributing to students
MVC                                                                           SLO REPORTNG FORM


along with the essay prompt 2 years ago. I return graded essays with sections of the rubric highlighted
that I think best describes the paper. By recording scores in the final 3 columns, those most relevant to
the student’s attempt to state and defend a position, I can track whether my efforts in class regarding
this particular SLO are making a difference. This past year I have developed and implemented an in-
class activity specifically designed to get students to think critically about Plato’s political
recommendations, which I hope will prepare them to a better job defending a position on this topic
through argument. I calculated averages using 4=A range, 3=B range, 2=C range, 1=D range, 0=F.

What were the results? Based on the results, what goal was set?
Students in the single Fall Phil 10 course averaged 3.3 for structure and organization, 3.4 for a clearly
articulated thesis, and 2.9 for support for claim. I find the first two scores acceptable for such a large
course, where I am unable to offer as much one-on-one attention as would like to, but the 2.9 for support
should be improved to at least 3.0. The 2.9 is an improvement over the corresponding data from the
previous semester, so I gather the distributed rubric and learning activity is having some effect.

What modifications to the curriculum were made?
In the Fall 2011 semester, I am planning to distribute and discuss 3-4 classic evaluations of Plato’s
political philosophy to the students. This should assist them in seeing what a philosophical evaluation
of the position on the table looks like, first hand.

Describe your re-inquiry strategy, including the timeline and results.
I will use the same assessment tools, and see if the new readings make for more effective defensive
argumentation in the students’ papers.

How have you shared this project with your colleagues?
I have not discussed this particular project with my colleagues at the Norco and City colleges, though
we do discuss general assessment strategies together at least once a semester.

Next step and timeline. Will you assess this course again focusing on a different SLO? Will you
assess a different version of this course-hybrid, online, evening, 8 week, etc.? Will you assess a
different course? If so which SLO will you address?
As I feel this is the SLO I feel I have the most difficulty in meeting, I will stick with its assessment for
now, as far as Phil 10 is concerned.
                                    Nick Sinigaglia
                    Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report
                  Philosophy 10H: Honors Introduction to Philosophy
                               Fall and Spring 2010-11

Tell us about the section(s) you assessed.
1 daytime, face-to-face class on the Moreno Valley College campus (Fall).

Which SLO from the Course Outline of Record (COR) does this project assess?
Plan, organize, and write an argumentative essay that
defends a position on a philosophical question or problem.

Why did you choose that SLO?
Learning to defend a position in a philosophical essay is typically the most challenging
task students face in this course.

What specific topic does this project focus on?
C.S. Lewis’s argument for theism from the objectivity of morality.

Describe your inquiry strategy, including the assessment tool, scoring criteria, and
timeline.
I have formulated an analytic rubric (see below) that I began distributing to students
along with the essay prompt 2 years ago. I return graded essays with sections of the
rubric highlighted that I think best describes the paper. By recording scores in the final
3 columns, those most relevant to the student’s attempt to state and defend a position, I
can track whether my efforts in class regarding this particular SLO are making a
difference. This past year I have explicitly tied Lewis’s argument to criticisms from
Plato’s Euthyphro and Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, which I hope will provide them
with concrete examples of what criticisms of Lewis might look like on this point. I
calculated averages using 4=A range, 3=B range, 2=C range, 1=D range, 0=F.

What were the results? Based on the results, what goal was set?
Using 4=A range, 3=B range, 2=C range, 1=D range, 0=F, students in the single Fall
Phil 10 course averaged 3.5 for structure and organization, 3.6 for a clearly articulated
thesis, and 3.2 for support for claim. These numbers are not a substantial change from
data previously generated using this assessment tool. The scores on structure and thesis
are acceptable, but the 3.2 score for argumentative support is still lower than I would
like to see in an honors course.

What modifications to the curriculum were made?
In the Fall 2011 semester, I am planning to distribute and discuss 1-2 further classic
evaluations of an argument like Lewis’s to the students. This should assist them in seeing
what a philosophical evaluation of the position on the table looks like, first hand. I may
consider having students prepare for and participate in a formal debate on this issue next
semester.
Describe your re-inquiry strategy, including the timeline and results.
I will use the same assessment tools, and see if the new readings make for more effective
defensive argumentation in the students’ papers.

How have you shared this project with your colleagues?
I have not discussed this particular project with my colleagues at the Norco and City
colleges, though we do discuss general assessment strategies together at least once a
semester.

Next step and timeline. Will you assess this course again focusing on a different
SLO? Will you assess a different version of this course-hybrid, online, evening, 8
week, etc.? Will you assess a different course? If so which SLO will you address?
As I feel this is the SLO I feel I have the most difficulty in meeting, I will stick with its
assessment for now, as far as Phil 10H is concerned.

                                      Nick Sinigaglia
                       Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report
                             Philosophy 11: Critical Thinking
                                 Fall and Spring 2010-11

Tell us about the section(s) you assessed.
2 daytime, face-to-face classes on the Moreno Valley College campus (Fall). I did not
teach a Phil 11 course in the Spring.

Which SLO from the Course Outline of Record (COR) does this project assess?
Apply an assortment of rules and principles to analyze, evaluate, and compose
arguments, distinguishing them from other forms of persuasive message.

Why did you choose that SLO?
This is the core SLO for the course, and the appropriate focus for the first few years of
assessment.

What specific topic does this project focus on?
Distinguishing argumentation from rhetoric, identifying basic fallacies, analyzing
arguments and elucidating their structure using diagrams.

Describe your inquiry strategy, including the assessment tool, scoring criteria, and
timeline.
As a discipline we have noticed that students seem much better at identifying and
analyzing arguments than they are at evaluating their strength. I give three quizzes over
the course of the semester in Phil 11, and during assessment identify which quiz
questions pertain to identifying and analyzing arguments, and which questions pertain to
argument evaluation. A score of 2 indicates that the student was successful in achieving
the outcome. 1 indicates that thought the student achieved the outcome, he or she needs
to improve. 0 indicates the student did not achieve the outcome. I distinguished between 2
and 1 because though we agreed that a score of 1 would be minimally successful, we

                                               21
wanted to note the percentage of students at that level in hopes of improving their
performance. 0 is unsuccessful in the indicated area. I average scores from questions
from one area and then questions from the other, allowing differentiation of the level of
success for argument identification/analyzation and the level of success in argument
evaluation. This assessment strategy has been applied to Phi 11 courses for 2 years now,
and I continue to try out new strategies where assessment shows they are most needed.
This semester, in addition to methods demonstrated to be successful in the past, I put
special emphasis on groups of students developing their own examples of fallacious
arguments and asking other groups to evaluate those arguments appropriately.

What were the results? Based on the results, what goal was set?
Quiz #1, argument identification/analyzation:
125 student tests were assessed: 48% of students were successful; 35% need improvement; 17% were
unsuccessful.
Quiz #1, argument evaluation:
125 student tests were assessed: 38% of students were successful; 37% need improvement; 24% were
unsuccessful.
Quiz #2, argument identification/analyzation:
114 student tests were assessed: 44% of students were successful; 27% need improvement; 30% were
unsuccessful.
Quiz #2, argument evaluation:
114 student tests were assessed: 42% of students were successful; 25% need improvement; 34% were
unsuccessful.
Quiz #3, argument identification/analyzation
103 student tests were assessed: 65% of students were successful; 20% need improvement; 15% were
unsuccessful.
Quiz #3, argument evaluation
103 student tests were assessed: 58% of students were successful; 22% need improvement; 20% were
unsuccessful.

Quiz #2 is typically the most difficult for students, so the relatively lower marks are not
cause for special concern. In absolute terms, however, the assessment results show that
far too many Phil 11 students are continuing to encounter difficulty with argument
evaluation. These numbers are not significantly different from past years, though the
classes are very significantly larger, so I am inclined to think that the new instructional
strategies I have adopted are having some effect, but are counteracted by the larger
classes sizes and the corresponding decrease in individual attention I am able to provide
students in this course.

What modifications to the curriculum were made?
I will need to continue developing group activities appropriate for large classes focused
on argument evaluation. I am thinking especially of strategically assigning particular
students to particular groups instead of allowing students to choose their groupmates, as
this may allow me to harness the skills of the students who are having an easier time with
the material in assisting those who are struggling.

Describe your re-inquiry strategy, including the timeline and results.
I will use the same assessment tools, and see if newly developed group strategies are
helping students cope with the effects of such large class sizes.

                                                22
How have you shared this project with your colleagues?
I have not discussed this particular project with my colleagues at the Norco and City
colleges, though we do discuss general assessment strategies together at least once a
semester.

Next step and timeline. Will you assess this course again focusing on a different
SLO? Will you assess a different version of this course-hybrid, online, evening, 8
week, etc.? Will you assess a different course? If so which SLO will you address?
As I feel this is the SLO I feel I have the most difficulty in meeting, I will stick with its
assessment for now, as far as Phil 11 is concerned.

                                      Nick Sinigaglia
                       Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report
                           Philosophy 12: Introduction to Ethics
                                 Fall and Spring 2010-11

Tell us about the section(s) you assessed.
1 daytime, face-to-face class on the Moreno Valley College campus (Fall). I taught a
section of Phil 12 in Beijing, China over the Spring semester but did not assess it, due to
the very small enrollment.

Which SLO from the Course Outline of Record (COR) does this project assess?
Plan, organize, and write an argumentative essay that
defends a position on a philosophical question or problem.

Why did you choose that SLO?
Learning to defend a position in a philosophical essay is typically the most challenging
task students face in this course.

What specific topic does this project focus on?
President Obama’s tax proposals vis-à-vis Rawls’s conception of the distribution of
wealth in a just society.

Describe your inquiry strategy, including the assessment tool, scoring criteria, and
timeline.
I have formulated an analytic rubric (see below) that I began distributing to students
along with the essay prompt 2 years ago. I return graded essays with sections of the
rubric highlighted that I think best describes the paper. By recording scores in the final
3 columns, those most relevant to the student’s attempt to state and defend a position, I
can track whether my efforts in class regarding this particular SLO are making a
difference. This past year I have explicitly tied Rawls’s argument to criticisms from
right-libertarian Nozick and Marx, which I hope will provide them with concrete
examples of what criticisms of Rawls might look like on this point. I calculated averages
using 4=A range, 3=B range, 2=C range, 1=D range, 0=F.

What were the results? Based on the results, what goal was set?

                                               23
              Using 4=A range, 3=B range, 2=C range, 1=D range, 0=F, students in the single Fall
              Phil 12 course averaged 3.3 for structure and organization, 3.4 for a clearly articulated
              thesis, and 3.4 for support for claim. This last number is a substantial change from data
              previously generated using this assessment tool. I find all of these scores acceptable, and
              see reason to move on to the assessment of other SLO’s at this point.

              What modifications to the curriculum were made? / Describe your re-inquiry
              strategy, including the timeline and results.

              As I am satisfied with the results here, I will continue to collect data but will focus on
              improving achievement levels for other SLO’s for the immediate future.

              How have you shared this project with your colleagues?
              I have not discussed this particular project with my colleagues at the Norco and City
              colleges, though we do discuss general assessment strategies together at least once a
              semester.

              Next step and timeline. Will you assess this course again focusing on a different
              SLO? Will you assess a different version of this course-hybrid, online, evening, 8
              week, etc.? Will you assess a different course? If so which SLO will you address?
              I will continue to assess this course, though I will need to confer with my counterparts at
              our sister colleges to determine which SLO(s) to focus on beginning in the Fall.




                  Grading Rubric for Philosophy Essays
              Essay is Well                                      Essay is Well                                Essay is
                                                                                                                Well
             Informed (50%)                                       Argued (50%)                                Written
    Conceptual        Development           Structure    Thesis or                   Support for Plus:
    Knowledge         and Support           and          Evaluative                  Claim and   Essay uses
                                                                                                 clear, direct,
    (20%)             (20%)                 Organization Claim                       Application grammatical
                                            (20%)         (20%)                      of Theory   prose; language
                                                                                     (20%)       is simple but
                                                                                                           not simplistic;
    Student shows     Students can          Essay is highly      Student goes        Student’s             diction makes
    command of        present, explain,     responsive to        beyond the mere     evaluative            meaning plain;
    important         and interpret the     each part of the     presentation of     claim(s) or           essay is proof-
    concepts (in      central               prompt, and/or       philosophical       thesis is             read carefully.
    their own         argument(s),          organizes its        theory,             convincingly
    words),           illustrating key      points around a      offering an         argued,
    explains them     points with           clear thesis.        evaluative          through sound
                                                                                                           Neutral:
                                                                                                           Writing may be
    clearly, and      appropriate           The intent of        claim(s) and/or     reasoning,
A   integrates this   quotations,           each paragraph       an original         consideration
                                                                                                           either too
                                                                                                           complicated or
    knowledge into    generally             and its relation     thesis that is      of examples,
                                                                                                           too simplistic;
    an                demonstrating a       to other essay       defensible and      and
                                                                                                           meaning is
    understanding     command of the        sections is          of the              appropriate
                                                                                                           occasionally
    of the relevant   author’s              explicit.            appropriate         quotes.
                                                                                                           unclear; needs
    philosophical     arguments and the                          breadth and         Student can
                                                                                                           some proof
    problems or       development of                             depth.              apply theory

                                                           24
    questions.        their thought.                                           to everyday      reading.
                                                                               situations and
                                                                               anticipate
                                                                               objections to
                                                                               their claims.


    Student shows a   Student shows       Essay uses         Student           Student offers
    good              some minor          distinct units     presents a        an argument in
    understanding     misunderstandings   of thought,        fairly clear      defense of
    of key concepts   of the central      organized into     and defensible    their view;
    (in their own     arguments and the   paragraphs with    evaluative        though
    words), with      development of      specific and       claim or          support,
    one or two        the author’s        detailed topic     thesis, though    reasoning, and
B   minor             thought; use of     sentences; but     it could          the use of
    conceptual        quotes could be     relation between   improved in       examples or
    inconsistencies   improved.           paragraphs is      terms of          quotes may be
    or ambiguities.                       too often left     originality,      somewhat
                                          implicit.          breadth, or       incomplete or
                                                             depth.            unconvincing.
    Student shows a   Student only        Essay has some     Student offers    Student’s        Minus:
    basic grasp of    partially           awkward            an evaluative     support for      Student tries
    some concepts,    develops the        transitions,       claim or          their claim(s)   too hard to be
    but sometimes     overall argument;   poorly organized   thesis; but it    is generally     “academic”, or
    fails to          some basic points   paragraphs, and    is either         unconvincing.    often uses
    explain           left unsupported    some extraneous    unclear,          Quotes and       colloquialisms;
    concepts in own   or unexplained;     information;       difficult to      examples are     poor grammar,
C   words, and/or
    borrows wording
                      poor selection
                      and integration
                                          parts of prompt
                                          (or thesis) left
                                                             defend,
                                                             unoriginal
                                                                               either
                                                                               inappropriate,
                                                                                                style results
                                                                                                in vague,
    from the text     of quotations.      unaddressed.       (obvious), or     absent, or       unclear
    or wording used                                          of unreasonable   overused         sentences.
    in lecture.                                              scope.            without
                                                                               adequate         Worse:
                                                                               explanation.
                                                                                                Meaning is
    Student shows     Student digresses   Essay offers an    Student’s         Student merely   frequently
    inadequate        often without       illogical          evaluative        offers quick     obscured by
    grasp of          proper              arrangement of     claim(s) or       opinion in       diction; many
    concepts;         development;        ideas; entire      thesis is         place of         grammatical or
    serious           serious             sections of        indefensible,     evaluation,      stylistic
    omissions of      omissions; no       prompt (or         trivial, or       without          errors; needs
    key concepts;     attempt made to     thesis) left       entirely vague;   adequate         serious proof
D   does not use
    own words to
                      integrate
                      quotations.
                                          unaddressed.       student may
                                                             merely offer a
                                                                               support;
                                                                               reasoning may
                                                                                                reading.

    explain                                                  list of           be non-
    concepts.                                                unsubstantiated   existent,
                                                             likes and         dogmatic, or
                                                             dislikes.         obviously
                                                                               unsound.
    Student shows     Little or no        Essay offers       Student offers    Student offers
    almost no         development; may    incoherent         no real           no real
    critical          read like a list    paragraph          critical          argument in
    understanding     of disjointed       organization;      evaluation or     support of
    of central        facts or            suggests poor      thesis;           their
    concepts; many    misinformation;     planning or no     student’s         evaluative
F   important         shows no            serious attempt    critical          claim(s) or
    concepts not      familiarity with    at revision.       thoughts are      thesis.
    discussed at      text(s).                               either non-
    all.                                                     existent or in
                                                             “rant” form.




                                                       25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:8/22/2011
language:English
pages:25