| Term | Spring 2013 |
|---|
| How and With Whom | Faculty and staff in the same program. |
|---|
| Number Assessed | 54 |
|---|
| Data Summary | Of the 54 students that took the multiple choice final, the average score on the CSLO portion was above 70%. Most of the questions received a better than 80% response rate. We were satisfied with these results. But we did not feel that the objective survey was the best suited for measuring critical thinking and writing skills. We decided to switch to a writing assignment assessment. Two classes already completed a writing assignment assessment that is being scaled up in Fall 2013 to all History 4A classes. Students completing the writing assignment assessment did fairly well. The essay assignment was scaffolded in prior writing assignments. Students in both classes helped create the essay questions. All score averages are above 4.5 (the minimum 75% for passing) = writing assignment considered successful. However, Turabian formatting was minimally required. Next semester give students full formatting guide and ask them to use it. Additionally, 36 students took the multiple choice final but only 26 students completed the writing final. Two students did honors work, bringing the writing number up to 28. Three students said they had done it but it was too late to turn it in for credit. All three were given the chance to turn the work in late via email, but did not do so. One student said that he thought he did well enough on the multiple choice final to pass, without realizing the paper is worth 30% of the grade. This should be clarified for next semester. |
|---|
| Planned Improvements | We put primary source collections online for students to have easier access to course materials. We decided to revise the Course Level Student Learning Outcomes to better map to Program SLOs and Institutional ILOs.
These changes have been completed already. |
|---|
| Program Review Link | Yes, the above future improvements require resources that will be requested during the next annual PROGRAM REVIEW cycle. Examples: additional staff, equipment, software, consulting services, etc. |
|---|