Meeting Notes University Studies Advisory Committee March 19, 2014 Participants Curry Guinn Von Yeager Martin Posey Paul Townend Linda Siefert Steven Emslie Mahnaz Moallem Tammy Hunt Phil Furia Jennifer Horan Notetaker: Lea Bullard Discussion Notes 1. Presentation: General Education Assessment Results 2010-2013 for Critical Thinking and Written Communication (Linda Siefert) a. Questions and comments: i. We do not have a performance benchmark for all students ii. Do you do analysis by students’ major? iii. Some departments don’t do course numbering by sophistication level; sometimes, courses are numbered according to a theme iv. Providing the rubrics to the students and tailoring assignments to them could be construed as “teaching to the test” v. There may be pedagogical reasons for not telling, too specifically, students what they are supposed to do. b. What other information would be helpful to collect and analyze for assessment? i. Ask for the students’ major ii. Get data from upper-division courses for CT iii. Are there plans to assess the capstone courses for CT? c. What recommendations for improvement could the USAC begin considering? i. We need to look at some ways to drive improvement while students are at the university ii. Holding CTE workshops tends to bring together the same group of people each time so those alone may not be enough; some ways to get more participants: 1. 10 minute roadshows to departments, alerting to issues and pointing to resources (can prioritze to hit some of the units that may not be thinking about it as much, and hit the ones that will be undergoing assessment in those areas soon; would need to gather resources prior to this) iii. Within each department, identify which faculty teach CT and WC
23
Embed
Critical Thinking and Written Communication€¦ · · 2016-06-151. Presentation: General Education Assessment Results 2010-2013 for Critical Thinking and Written Communication
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Meeting Notes University Studies Advisory Committee
March 19, 2014
Participants Curry Guinn Von Yeager Martin Posey Paul Townend Linda Siefert Steven Emslie Mahnaz Moallem Tammy Hunt Phil Furia Jennifer Horan Notetaker: Lea Bullard
Discussion Notes
1. Presentation: General Education Assessment Results 2010-2013 for Critical Thinking and Written Communication (Linda Siefert)
a. Questions and comments: i. We do not have a performance benchmark for all students ii. Do you do analysis by students’ major? iii. Some departments don’t do course numbering by sophistication level; sometimes,
courses are numbered according to a theme iv. Providing the rubrics to the students and tailoring assignments to them could be
construed as “teaching to the test” v. There may be pedagogical reasons for not telling, too specifically, students what they are
supposed to do. b. What other information would be helpful to collect and analyze for assessment?
i. Ask for the students’ major ii. Get data from upper-division courses for CT iii. Are there plans to assess the capstone courses for CT?
c. What recommendations for improvement could the USAC begin considering? i. We need to look at some ways to drive improvement while students are at the university ii. Holding CTE workshops tends to bring together the same group of people each time so
those alone may not be enough; some ways to get more participants: 1. 10 minute roadshows to departments, alerting to issues and pointing to
resources (can prioritze to hit some of the units that may not be thinking about it as much, and hit the ones that will be undergoing assessment in those areas soon; would need to gather resources prior to this)
iii. Within each department, identify which faculty teach CT and WC
Critical Thinking and Written Communication
Curriculum Matrix that aligns the 17 components of University Studies with the 8 UNCW Learning Goals
General Education Assessment Schedule ◦ First Round (ending this semester): assessed all
Learning Goals and all components at least once in 3 years ◦ Next Round: to be determined; need USAC input
Results for Composition, FA, SBS, IDP, AIL and WI
WC1 Context and Purpose for Writing WC2 Content Development WC3 Genre and Disciplinary Conventions WC4 Sources and Evidence WC5 Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Written Communication has been assessed 4 times since Spring 2010: ◦ Spring 2010 – Basic Studies: Composition, Fine Arts,
Social and Behavioral Science ◦ Sprint 2011 – Basic Studies: Composition and
Interdisciplinary Perspectives ◦ Spring 2013 – University Studies: Aesthetic,
Interpretative, and Literary Perspectives and Writing Intensive
Spring 2010 Basic Studies ◦ Composition: ENG 201 ◦ Fine Arts: FST 210, MUS 115, PSY 105
Spring 2011Basic Studies ◦ Composition: ENG 201 ◦ Interdisciplinary Perspectives: WGS 210 ◦ 300-level pilot
Spring 2013 University Studies ◦ AIL: FST 110, MUS 115, THR 121 ◦ WI: ACG 445, NSC 415, SEC 372
Dimension SP10 Comp
SP10 Fine Arts
SP10 Social
Behavioral
SP11 COMP
SP11 IDP
SP13 US AIL
WC1 Context and Purpose 100% 78.9% 94.7% 76.6% 75.0% 76.4%
WC2 Content Development 94.6% 69.7% 94.7% 67.2% 68.7% 75.5%