ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING … · documentation for this set: 1. Documentation for each meeting begins with a copy of the meeting agenda. 2. Copies of additional materials

2015-2016

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES

General Notes

The following structure has been adopted to enhance the readability and flow of the

documentation for this set:

1. Documentation for each meeting begins with a copy of the meeting agenda.

2. Copies of additional materials presented in meetings are presented after the agenda.

3. Minutes from each meeting are presented after the agenda OR copies of materials.

4. If materials were revised during meetings, the original version of each document and the

revised version of each document are labeled accordingly and presented after the minutes

for each meeting.

5. This documentation structure then repeats itself with each subsequent meeting.

All minutes, document revisions, and other materials presented in this set were approved by

voting members of this committee.

Notes About This Specific Documentation Set

The materials included in this documentation set feature materials from all committee meetings.

1. Question

2. Plan

3. Collect

4. Study

5. Intervene

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Thursday, December 3rd, 2015, in UC 115 from 12-1

Overview of 2015-2016 Priorities

Select, review, revise, and/or vote on the characteristics and student performance standards (acceptable and ideal) for various assessment measures

o Core Curriculum assessment o Future new direct assessments (e.g., Global Awareness Profile)

Suggest, select, and/or review various assessment-related resources and professional development tools for faculty

o General assessment resources o Development of Critical Thinking Skills and Communication Skills o Preparations for assessment of future Core Objectives (e.g., Teamwork, Empirical & Quantitative

Skills)

Review and provide assessment feedback (Taskstream) to all academic programs for 2015-2016

Core Curriculum Student Performance Standard Need to set student performance standards for Core Curriculum assessment.

Overview of 2014-2015 Core Curriculum Results* (Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills)

Critical Thinking Written Communication Oral Communication

Explanation of Issues 1.93 Context & Purpose 2.38 Organization 3.11

Evidence 1.69 Content Development 2.21 Language 2.73

Context & Assumptions 1.71 Genre & Disciplinary 2.17 Delivery 2.42

Student’s Position 1.76 Sources & Evidence 1.69 Supporting Material 3.04

Conclusions 1.88 Syntax & Mechanics 2.29 Central Message 2.85

OVERALL 1.79 OVERALL 2.15 OVERALL 2.83

*The acceptable student performance standard for each of these competencies was initially set to be an average score of 2.0 on all rubric criteria

Spring 2016 Meetings Meeting Days/Times

Thursdays, 12-1, as needed?

Alternatives? Too soon to tell? General Timeline of Spring 2016 Activity Topics

January: Critical Thinking and Communication (rubrics, resources/professional development)

February: Teamwork & Empirical & Quantitative Skills (rubrics, resources/professional development)

March: General assessment resources, professional development, and other needs

April: General assessment resources, professional development, and other needs

May: Review of academic program assessment information (Taskstream)

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MEETING Thursday, December 3rd, 2015, in UC 115 from 12-1

Committee Members Present: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Yi Su, Dr. James Nguyen, Dr. Jade Jenkins Committee Members Absent: Dr. Richard Herrera Meeting Start Time: 12:05 Meeting Outcomes

1. Committee members reviewed and discussed assessment priorities for the 2015-2016 academic year.

2. Committee members reviewed and discussed the Core Curriculum assessment results from the May 2015 faculty review panels. The committee opted to postpone voting on establishing student performance standards (acceptable vs. ideal) on future assessments until the next meeting. This decision was made so that the committee could consult both the Core Curriculum assessment results from May 2015 and the content of each of the associated LEAP VALUE rubrics before making student performance standard recommendations.

3. The committee agreed to hold the first meeting of the Spring 2016 semester during the second week of classes (on Thursday, January 28th, from 12-1). Dr. Jenkins will prepare and forward a copy of that meeting’s agenda and other materials (e.g., rubrics) during the first week of classes and will meet with Dr. Ells prior to this meeting. The committee agreed to meet once a week (but no more than twice a week, and will only meet that frequently when needed) until all priorities for 2015-2016 have been addressed.

Meeting End Time: 12:55

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MEETING Thursday, January 28th, in UC 115 from 12-1

Minutes from Last Meeting -Please see attached “Academic Assessment Committee Minutes from Meeting” document from Thursday, December 3rd -Vote to approve or revise minutes

Core Curriculum Student Performance Standards THECB defines Critical Thinking Skills as including “creative thinking, innovation, inquiry, and analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information.” -Please see attached for LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric

-Rubric selected and approved in full in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Critical Thinking

-Also see below for the 14-15 Core Curriculum Results for Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Thinking Skills

Explanation of Issues 1.93

Evidence 1.69

Context & Assumptions 1.71

Student’s Position 1.76

Conclusions 1.88

OVERALL 1.79

-Vote for rubric modifications (if any) for next use in 2018-2019 -Vote to establish student performance standards, both for rubric in current form (for 2015-2016) and for revised rubric (if revised) for 2018-2019 If time…. THECB defines Communication Skills as including “effective development, interpretation, and expression of ideas through written, oral, and visual communication.” -Please see attached for LEAP VALUE Written Communication Rubric and LEAP VALUE Oral Communication Rubric

-Rubrics selected and approved in full in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Communication

-Also see below for the 14-15 Core Curriculum Results for Communication Skills

Written Communication Oral Communication Visual Communication

Context & Purpose 2.38 Organization 3.11 Supporting Material 3.04

Content Development 2.21 Language 2.73 OVERALL 3.04

Genre & Disciplinary 2.17 Delivery 2.42

Sources & Evidence 1.69 Central Message 2.85

Syntax & Mechanics 2.29 OVERALL 2.78

OVERALL 2.15

-Vote for rubric modifications (if any) for next use in 2018-2019 -Vote to establish student performance standards, both for rubric in current form (for 2015-2016) and for revised rubric (if revised) for 2018-2019

Future Meetings We will meet every Thursday from 12-1 in UC 115 until our work is completed. Thus, our next meeting is Thursday, February 4th.

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Critical Thinking. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15

CRITICAL THINKING VALUE RUBRIC

Foundation Component Area (FCA): __________________ Student Artifact #: ________________ Reviewer Initials: _____________

Capstone Milestones Benchmark Below

Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Explanation of

Issues

Issue/problem to be considered

critically is stated clearly and

described comprehensively,

delivering all relevant information

necessary for full understanding.

Issue/problem to be

considered critically is stated,

described, and clarified so that

understanding is not seriously

impeded by omissions.


critically is stated but description

leaves some terms undefined,

ambiguities unexplored,

boundaries undetermined, and/or

backgrounds unknown.

Issue/problem to be

considered critically is

stated without

clarification or

description.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Evidence

Selecting and using

information to

investigate a point of

view or conclusion

Information is taken from source(s)

with enough

interpretation/evaluation to develop

a comprehensive analysis or

synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are

questioned thoroughly.

Information is taken from

source(s) with enough

interpretation/evaluation to

develop a coherent analysis or

synthesis. Viewpoints of

experts are subject to

questioning.


source(s) with some

interpretation/ evaluation, but not

enough to develop a coherent

analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints

of experts are taken as mostly

fact, with little questioning.

Information is taken

from source(s) without

any interpretation/

evaluation. Viewpoints

of experts are taken as

fact, without question.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Influence of Context

and Assumptions

Thoroughly (systematically and

methodically) analyzes own and

others’ assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts

when presenting a position.

Identifies own and others’ assumptions and several

relevant contexts when

presenting a position.

Questions some assumptions.

Identifies several relevant

contexts when presenting a

position. May be more aware of

others’ assumptions than one’s own (or vice versa).

Shows an emerging

awareness of present

assumptions

(sometimes labels

assertions as

assumptions). Begins to

identify some contexts

when presenting a

position.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Student’s Position (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis)

Specific position (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative,

taking into account the complexities

of an issue. Limits of position

(perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are

acknowledged. Others’ points of

view are synthesized within position

(perspective, thesis/hypothesis).


thesis/hypothesis) takes into

account the complexities of an

issue. Others’ points of view are acknowledged within

position (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis).


thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges

different sides of an issue.

Specific position

(perspective,

thesis/hypothesis) is

stated, but is simplistic

and obvious.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Conclusions and

related outcomes

(implications and

consequences)

Conclusions and related outcomes

(consequences and implications) are

logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to

place evidence and perspectives

discussed in priority order.

Conclusion is logically tied to

a range of information,

including opposing

viewpoints; related outcomes

(consequences and

implications) are identified

clearly.


information (because information

is chosen to fit the desired

conclusion); some related

outcomes (consequences and


clearly.

Conclusion is

inconsistently tied to

some of the information

discussed; related

outcomes

(consequences and

implications) are

oversimplified.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

TOTAL Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Written Communication. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION VALUE RUBRIC


Capstone Milestones Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Context of and

Purpose for

Writing Includes

considerations of

audience, purpose, and

the circumstances

surrounding the

writing task(s).

Demonstrates a thorough

understanding of context, audience,

and purpose that is responsive to the

assigned task(s) and focuses all

elements of the work.

Demonstrates adequate

consideration of context,

audience, and purpose and a

clear focus on the assigned

task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with

audience, purpose, and context).

Demonstrate awareness of

context, audience, purpose,

and to the assigned task(s)

(e.g., begins to show

awareness of audience’s perceptions and assumptions)

Demonstrates minimal

attention to context,

audience, purpose, and to the

assigned task(s) (e.g.,

expectation of instructor or

self as audience).

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Content

Development

Uses appropriate, relevant, and

compelling content to illustrate

mastery of the subject, conveying the

writer’s understanding, and shaping the whole work.


compelling content to explore

ideas within the context of the

discipline and shape the whole

work.

Uses appropriate and relevant

content to develop and

explore ideas through most of

the work.

Uses appropriate and

relevant content to develop

simple ideas in some parts of

the work.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Genre and

Disciplinary

Conventions Formal and informal

rules inherent in the

expectations for

writing in particular

forms and/or academic

fields.

Demonstrates detailed attention to and

successful execution of a wide range of

conventions particular to a specific

discipline and/or writing task(s),

including organization, content,

presentation, formatting, and stylistic

choices.

Demonstrates consistent use of

important conventions particular

to a specific discipline and/or

writing task(s), including

organization, content,

presentation, and stylistic

choices.

Follows expectations

appropriate to a specific

discipline and/or writing

task(s) for basic organization,

content, and presentation.

Attempts to use a consistent

system for basic

organization and

presentation.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Sources and

Evidence

Demonstrates skillful use of high-

quality, credible, relevant sources to

develop ideas that are appropriate for

the discipline and genre of the writing.


credible, relevant sources to

support ideas that are situated

within the discipline and genre

of the writing.

Demonstrates an attempt to

use credible and/or relevant

sources to support ideas that

are appropriate for the

discipline and genre of the

writing.


use sources to support ideas

in the writing.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Control of Syntax

and Mechanics

Uses graceful language that skillfully

communicates meaning to readers with

clarity and fluency, and is virtually

error-free.

Uses straightforward language

that generally conveys meaning

to readers. The language in the

portfolio has few errors.

Uses language that generally

conveys meaning to readers

with clarity, although writing

may include some errors.

Uses language that

sometimes impedes meaning

because of errors in usage.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Total Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Oral, Aural, and Visual Communication. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15

ORAL COMMUNICATION VALUE RUBRIC



Score 4 3 2 1 0

Organization

Organizational pattern (title

reflecting topic of presentation,

sequenced material within the

body, and transitions) is clearly

and consistently observable and

is skillful and makes the content

of the presentation cohesive.

Organizational pattern

(title reflecting topic of

presentation, sequenced

material within the body,

and transitions) is

clearly and consistently

observable within the

presentation.





and transitions) is

intermittently observable

within the presentation.


reflecting topic of

presentation sequenced

material within the body, and

transitions) is not observable


Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Language Language choices are

imaginative, memorable, and

compelling, and enhance the

effectiveness of the

presentation. Language in

presentation is appropriate to

audience.

Language choices are

thoughtful and generally

support the effectiveness

of the presentation.

Language in presentation

is appropriate to

audience.


mundane and common

place, and partially




is appropriate to

audience.


unclearly and minimally

support the effectiveness of

the presentation. Language in

presentation is not appropriate

to audience.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Delivery Delivery techniques (vocal

expressiveness, clear

pronunciation, not strong foreign

accent) make the presentation

compelling, and speaker appears

polished and confident.

Delivery techniques

(vocal expressiveness,

clear pronunciation, not

strong foreign accent)

make the presentation

interesting, and speaker

appears comfortable.

Delivery techniques


clear pronunciation, not

strong foreign accent)


understandable, and

speaker appears tentative.

Delivery techniques (vocal


pronunciation, not strong

foreign accent) detract from

understandability of the

presentation, and speaker

appears uncomfortable.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Supporting

Material

A variety of types of

supporting materials

(explanations, examples,

illustrations) make appropriate

reference to information that

significantly supports the

presentation.

Supporting materials


illustrations) make

appropriate reference to

information that generally

supports the

presentation.



illustrations) make


information that partially

supports the

presentation.

Insufficient supporting

materials (explanations,

examples, illustrations) make


minimally supports the

presentation.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Central Message Central message is compelling

(precisely stated, appropriately

repeated, memorable, and

strongly supported.)

Central message is clear

and consistent with the

supporting material.

Central message is

basically understandable,

but is not often repeated and

is not memorable.

Central message can be

deduced, but is not explicitly

stated in the presentation.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Total Score

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MEETING Thursday, January 28th, 2015, in UC 115 from 12-1

Committee Members Present: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Jade Jenkins, Dr. James Nguyen, Dr. Richard Herrera Committee Members Absent: Dr. Yi Su Meeting Start Time: 12:05 Meeting Outcomes

1. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric and made one revision to enhance the clarity of that rubric

a. See attached for revised copy of LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric 2. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Oral Communication rubric and made revisions to

enhance the clarity of that rubric a. See attached for revised copy of LEAP VALUE Oral Communication rubric

3. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Written Communication rubric and made revisions to enhance the clarity of that rubric

4. Committee decided to review the rubric criteria for each of these revised rubrics so that the committee can add to, subtract from, or maintain the current rubric criteria at the next meeting


Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Critical Thinking.

Revisions made by Academic Assessment Committee in January and February 2016.

Version 2.0 Posted ??




Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Explanation of

Issues






Issue/problem to be











Issue/problem to be


stated without

clarification or

description.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Evidence

Selecting and using

information to


view or conclusion


with enough











questioning.


source(s) with some








any interpretation/




Failed to

meet

benchmark.


and Assumptions



others’ assumptions and carefully

evaluates the relevance of contexts










Shows an emerging


assumptions

(sometimes labels

assertions as



when presenting a

position.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Student’s Position (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis)


thesis/hypothesis) takes into account

the complexities of an issue. Limits

of position (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis) are

acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position

(perspective, thesis/hypothesis).




issue. Others’ points of view are acknowledged within

position (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis).




Specific position

(perspective,



and obvious.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Conclusions and

related outcomes

(implications and

consequences)








including opposing


(consequences and


clearly.







clearly.

Conclusion is



discussed; related

outcomes

(consequences and

implications) are

oversimplified.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

TOTAL Score




Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Oral, Aural, and Visual Communication.






Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Organization






makes the content of the

presentation cohesive.





and transitions) is



presentation.





and transitions) is




reflecting topic of





Failed to

meet

benchmark.






presentation is appropriate for

audience.






is appropriate for

audience.


mundane and common





is appropriate for

audience.






for audience.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.



pronunciation) make the

presentation compelling, and

speaker appears polished and

confident.

Delivery techniques


clear pronunciation)




Delivery techniques


clear pronunciation) make

the presentation

understandable, and




pronunciation) detract from




Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Supporting

Material




illustrations) make appropriate



presentation.



illustrations) make



supports the

presentation.



illustrations) make



supports the

presentation.


materials (explanations,

examples, illustrations) make


minimally supports the

presentation.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Central Message Central message is compelling




Central message is clear



Central message is

basically understandable,

but is not often repeated and

is not memorable.

Central message can be

deduced, but is not explicitly


Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Total Score

Rubric selected in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Written Communication.






Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Context of and

Purpose for

Writing Includes

considerations of


the circumstances

surrounding the

writing task(s).










task(s).

Demonstrates awareness of


and to the assigned task(s).




assigned task(s).

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Content

Development


compelling content to demonstrate


writer’s understanding, and structuring

the whole work.




discipline and to structure the

whole work.



explore ideas throughout most

of the work.




the work.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Genre and

Disciplinary



expectations for



fields.







choices.







choices.







system for basic

organization and

presentation.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Sources and

Evidence

Demonstrates skillful use of credible,

relevant sources to develop ideas

appropriate for the discipline and genre

of the writing.



support ideas situated within the


writing.



sources to support ideas

appropriate for the discipline

and genre of the writing.



in the writing.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Control of Syntax

and Mechanics




error-free.







with clarity. Writing may

include some errors.

Uses language that



Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Total Score

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MEETING Thursday, February 4th, in UC 115 from 12-1

Core Curriculum Rubric Revisions and Student Performance Standards THECB defines Critical Thinking Skills as including “creative thinking, innovation, inquiry, and analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information.” -Please see attached for LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric

-Rubric selected and approved in full in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Critical Thinking

-Also see below for the 14-15 Core Curriculum Results for Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Thinking Skills

Explanation of Issues 1.93

Evidence 1.69

Context & Assumptions 1.71

Student’s Position 1.76

Conclusions 1.88

OVERALL 1.79

-Vote for rubric criteria modifications (if any) for next use (either for immediate use or for 2018-2019) -Vote to establish student performance standards for each rubric criterion If time…. THECB defines Communication Skills as including “effective development, interpretation, and expression of ideas through written, oral, and visual communication.” -Please see attached for LEAP VALUE Written Communication Rubric and LEAP VALUE Oral Communication Rubric

-Rubrics selected and approved in full in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Communication

-Also see below for the 14-15 Core Curriculum Results for Communication Skills

Written Communication Oral Communication Visual Communication

Context & Purpose 2.38 Organization 3.11 Supporting Material 3.04

Content Development 2.21 Language 2.73 OVERALL 3.04

Genre & Disciplinary 2.17 Delivery 2.42

Sources & Evidence 1.69 Central Message 2.85

Syntax & Mechanics 2.29 OVERALL 2.78

OVERALL 2.15

-Vote for rubric criteria modifications (if any) for next use (either for immediate use or for 2018-2019) -Vote to establish student performance standards for each rubric criterion


ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MEETING Thursday, February 4th, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Committee Members Present: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Jade Jenkins, Dr. James Nguyen, Dr. Richard Herrera Committee Members Absent: None Meeting Start Time: 11:55 Meeting Outcomes

1. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric. The committee agreed to keep all rubric criteria and to not insert additional criteria to the rubric. The committee also made one final minor revision to the rubric.

a. See attached for the final copy of version 2 of the LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric 2. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Oral Communication rubric. The committee

agreed to keep all rubric criteria and to not insert additional criteria to the rubric. The committee also made a few final minor revisions to the rubric.

a. See attached for the final copy of version 2 of the LEAP VALUE Oral Communication rubric

3. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Written Communication rubric. The committee agreed to keep all rubric criteria and to not insert additional criteria to the rubric. The committee did not make any other revisions to this rubric.

a. See attached for the final copy of version 2 of the LEAP VALUE Written Communication rubric.

4. The committee decided to dedicate next meeting to setting student performance standards for each rubric criterion within each rubric.



Revisions finalized by Academic Assessment Committee in February 2016.





Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Explanation of

Issues






Issue/problem to be











Issue/problem to be


stated without

clarification or

description.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Evidence

Selecting and using

information to


view or conclusion


with enough











questioning.


source(s) with some








any interpretation/




Failed to

meet

benchmark.


and Assumptions



others’ assumptions and carefully

evaluates the relevance of contexts










Shows an emerging


assumptions

(sometimes labels

assertions as



when presenting a

position.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Student’s Central

Argument

(perspective,

thesis/hypothesis)

Specific argument (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis) takes into account

the complexities of an issue. Limits

of argument (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis) are

acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within

argument (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis).

Specific argument

(perspective,



issue. Others’ points of view

are acknowledged within

argument (perspective,

thesis/hypothesis).

Specific argument (perspective,



Specific argument

(perspective,



and obvious.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Conclusions and

related outcomes

(implications and

consequences)








including opposing


(consequences and


clearly.







clearly.

Conclusion is



discussed; related

outcomes

(consequences and

implications) are

oversimplified.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

TOTAL Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Oral, Aural, and Visual Communication.

Revisions finalized by Academic Assessment Committee in February 2016.





Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Organization






makes the content of the

presentation cohesive.





and transitions) is



presentation.





and transitions) is




reflecting topic of





Failed to

meet

benchmark.






presentation is appropriate for

audience.






is appropriate for

audience.


mundane and common





is appropriate for

audience.






for audience.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.



pronunciation, nonverbal

behaviors) make the

presentation compelling, and

speaker appears polished and

confident.

Delivery techniques


clear pronunciation)




Delivery techniques


clear pronunciation) make

the presentation

understandable, and




pronunciation) detract from




Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Supporting

Material



(arguments, examples, audio-

visual aids) make appropriate



thesis/central idea.


(arguments, examples,

audio-visual aids) make



supports the



(arguments, examples,

audio-visual aids) make



supports the



materials (arguments,

examples, audio-visual aids)

make reference to information

that minimally supports the


Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Central Thesis Central thesis is compelling




Central thesis is clear



Central thesis is basically

understandable, but is not

often repeated and is not

memorable.

Central thesis can be

inferred, but is not explicitly


Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Total Score

Rubric selected in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Written Communication.






Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Context of and

Purpose for

Writing Includes

considerations of


the circumstances

surrounding the

writing task(s).










task(s).

Demonstrates awareness of


and to the assigned task(s).




assigned task(s).

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Content

Development


compelling content to demonstrate


writer’s understanding, and structuring

the whole work.




discipline and to structure the

whole work.



explore ideas throughout most

of the work.




the work.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Genre and

Disciplinary



expectations for



fields.







choices.







choices.







system for basic

organization and

presentation.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Sources and

Evidence

Demonstrates skillful use of credible,

relevant sources to develop ideas

appropriate for the discipline and genre

of the writing.



support ideas situated within the


writing.



sources to support ideas

appropriate for the discipline

and genre of the writing.



in the writing.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Control of Syntax

and Mechanics




error-free.







with clarity. Writing may

include some errors.

Uses language that



Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Total Score

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Thursday, February 18th, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Minutes from Last Meeting -Please see attached “Academic Assessment Committee Minutes from Meeting” document from Thursday, February 4th .

Core Curriculum Student Performance Standards See below for the 14-15 Core Curriculum Results for Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Thinking Skills Written Communication Oral Communication Visual Communication Explanation of Issues 1.93 Context & Purpose 2.38 Organization 3.11 Supporting Material 3.04

Evidence 1.69 Content Development 2.21 Language 2.73 OVERALL 3.04

Context & Assumptions 1.71 Genre & Disciplinary 2.17 Delivery 2.42

Student’s Central Argument 1.76 Sources & Evidence 1.69 Central Thesis 2.85

Conclusions 1.88 Syntax & Mechanics 2.29 OVERALL 2.78

OVERALL 1.79 OVERALL 2.15

-Vote to establish student performance standards for finalized rubrics (see attached to reference the final revised copies of rubrics if needed) If time…. -Begin reviewing the LEAP VALUE rubrics for Teamwork (to assess Teamwork) and for Quantitative Literacy (to assess Empricial & Quantitative Skills) for potential revisions (see attached for copies of these rubrics).



Committee Members Present: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Jade Jenkins, Dr. James Nguyen, Dr. Kathleen Missildine Committee Members Absent: None Meeting Start Time: 11:55 Meeting Outcomes

1. Committee members reviewed the revised versions of the LEAP VALUE Critical Thinking rubric, the LEAP VALUE Written Communication rubric, and the LEAP VALUE Oral Communication rubric. This review was conducted for the purpose of determining what the acceptable student performance standard and the ideal student performance standard should be for each rubric. The result of this review and our discussion was as follows:

a. The acceptable student performance standard will be achieving an overall score of 2 on each rubric.

b. The ideal student performance standard will be achieving an overall score of 2.5 on each rubric.

2. Committee members reviewed the LEAP VALUE Teamwork rubric. The committee became concerned with some of the content of the rubric and the perceived “fit” between this rubric and the types of artifacts that faculty at TAMU-T are accustomed to collecting for team projects. Thus, the committee elected to delay further discussion of assessing teamwork until the following week so that more information could be presented (e.g., sample rubrics from other institutions, sample artifacts that have been evaluated using these rubrics).

3. The committee elected to delay discussion of the LEAP VALUE Quantitative Literacy rubric (which was revised to be known as the Quantitative Reasoning rubric) until after our focus on assessing teamwork concludes.


ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Thursday, February 25th, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Minutes from Last Meeting -Please see attached “Academic Assessment Committee Minutes from Meeting” document from Thursday, February 18th.

Core Curriculum Rubric Review

Empirical & Quantitative Skills is defined by THECB as requiring students to “….include the manipulation and analysis of numerical data or observable facts resulting in informed conclusions.” -Begin reviewing the LEAP VALUE rubric for Quantitative Reasoning (to assess Empirical & Quantitative Skills) for potential revisions (see attached for a copy of this rubric). If time….. Teamwork is defined by the THECB as required students to “….include the ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal.” -Begin reviewing the rubrics, artifacts, and/or other resources Jade has produced to determine what a suitable rubric to assess Teamwork would look like.

Future Meetings We will meet every Thursday from 12-1 in UC 115 until our work is completed. Thus, our next meeting is Thursday, March 3rd.

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Empirical & Quantitative Skills. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15

QUANTITATIVE REASONING VALUE RUBRIC



Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Interpretation Ability to explain information

presented in mathematical forms

(e.g., equations, graphs,

diagrams, tables, words)

Provide accurate explanations of

information presented in

mathematical forms. Makes

appropriate inferences based on

that information. For example,

accurately explains the trend

data shown in a graph and

makes reasonable predictions

regarding what the data suggest

about future events.

Provides accurate explanations of

information presented in mathematical

forms. For instance, accurately

explains this trend data shown in a

graph.

Provides somewhat accurate

explanations of information

presented in mathematical

forms, but occasionally makes

minor errors related to

computations or units. For

instance, accurately explains

trend data shown in a graph,

but may miscalculate the slop

of the trend line.

Attempts to explain information

presented in mathematical forms, but

draws incorrect conclusions about what

the information means. For example,

attempts to explain the trend data

shown in a graph, but will frequently

misinterpret the nature of that trend,

perhaps by confusing positive and

negative trends.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Representation Ability to convert relevant

information into various

mathematical forms (e.g.,

equations, graphs, diagrams,

tables, words)

Skillfully converts relevant

information into an insightful

mathematical portrayal in a way

that contributes to a further or

deeper understanding.

Competently converts relevant

information into an appropriate and

desired mathematical portrayal.

Completes conversion of

information but resulting

mathematical portrayal is only

partially appropriate or

accurate.

Completes conversion of information

but resulting mathematical portrayal is

inappropriate for inaccurate.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Calculation Calculations attempted are

essentially all successful and

sufficiently comprehensive to

solve the problem. Calculations

are also presented elegantly

(clearly, concisely, etc.)

Calculations attempted are essentially

all successful and sufficiently

comprehensive to solve the problem.

Calculations attempted are

either unsuccessful or represent

only a portion of the

calculations required to

comprehensively solve the

problem.

Calculations are attempted but are both

unsuccessful and are not

comprehensive.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Application/ Analysis Ability to make judgments and

draw appropriate conclusions

based on the quantitative analysis

of data, while recognizing the

limits of this analysis

Uses the quantitative analysis of

data as the basis for deep and

thoughtful judgments, drawing,

insightful, carefully qualified

conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data

as the basis for competent judgments,

drawing reasonable and appropriately

qualified conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis

of data as the basis for

workmanlike (without

inspiration or nuance, ordinary)

judgments, drawing plausible


Uses the quantitative analysis of data as

the basis for tentative, basic judgments,

although is hesitant or uncertain about

drawing conclusions from this work.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Assumptions Ability to make and evaluate

important assumptions in

estimation, modeling, and data

analysis

Explicitly describes assumptions

and provides compelling

rationale for why each

assumption is appropriate.

Shows awareness that

confidence in final conclusions

is limited by the accuracy of the

assumptions.

Explicitly describes assumptions and

provides compelling rationale for why

assumptions are appropriate.

Explicitly describes

assumptions.

Attempts to describe assumptions. Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Communication Expressing quantitative evidence

in support of the argument or

purpose of the work (in terms of

what evidence is used and how it

is formatted, presented, and

contextualized)

Uses quantitative information in

connection with the argument or

purpose of the work, presents it

in an effective format, and

explicates it with consistently

high quality.



purpose of the work, though data may

be presented in a less than completely

effective format or some parts of the

explication may be uneven.

Uses quantitative information,

but does not effectively

connect it to the argument or

purpose of the work.

Presents an argument for which

quantitative evidence is pertinent, but

does not provide adequate explicit

numerical support. (May use quasi-

quantitative words such as "many,"

"few," "increasing," "small," and the

like in place of actual quantities.)

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Empirical & Quantitative Skills. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15

TOTAL Score


Committee Members Present: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Jade Jenkins, Dr. Kathleen Missildine Committee Members Absent: Dr. James Nguyen, Meeting Start Time: 12:05 Meeting Outcomes

1. Committee members reviewed the Quantitative Reasoning rubric and made suggestions for changes on most rubric criteria (we did not have enough time left to revise the Communication rubric criterion). We did not have a quorum of voting members at this meeting, so we elected to document the suggestions for changes we generated this week and vote on them next week.

a. See attached for revised copy of the Quantitative Reasoning rubric Meeting End Time: 12:50




Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Interpretation Ability to explain information presented quantitatively (e.g.,


tables, words)

Provide accurate explanations of information presented quantitatively.

Makes appropriate inferences based on

that information. For example, accurately explains the trend data

shown in a graph and makes

reasonable predictions regarding what the data suggest about future events.

Provides accurate explanations of information presented

quantitatively. For instance,

accurately explains this trend data shown in a graph.

Provides somewhat accurate explanations of information

presented quantitatively, but

occasionally makes minor errors related to computations

or units. For instance,

accurately explains trend data shown in a graph, but may

miscalculate the slop of the

trend line.

Attempts to explain information presented quantitatively, but draws

incorrect conclusions about what the

information means. For example, attempts to explain the trend data


misinterpret the nature of that trend, perhaps by confusing positive and

negative trends.

Failed to meet

benchmark.


information quantitatively (e.g.,

equations, graphs, diagrams, tables, words)

Skillfully converts relevant information

into a quantitative representation in a

way that contributes to a deeper understanding.


information into an appropriate

and accurate quantitative representation.



quantitative representation is only partially appropriate or

accurate.


but resulting quantitative representation

is inappropriate or inaccurate.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Calculation Calculations attempted are all correct

and sufficiently comprehensive to solve

the problem. Calculations are also presented elegantly (clearly, concisely,

etc.)


mostly correct and sufficiently

comprehensive to solve the problem.


either incorrect or represent

only a portion of the calculations required to


problem.


incorrect and are not comprehensive.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Analysis Ability to make judgments and


based on the quantitative analysis of data, while recognizing the



the basis for deep and thoughtful

judgments, drawing, insightful, carefully qualified conclusions from

this work.



competent judgments, drawing reasonable and appropriately

qualified conclusions from this

work.



simplistic (without inspiration or nuance, ordinary)





although is hesitant or uncertain about drawing conclusions from this work.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.


in support of the argument or purpose of the work (in terms of

what evidence is used and how it is formatted, presented, and

contextualized)


connection with the argument or purpose of the work, presents it in an

effective format, and explicates it with

consistently high quality.

Uses quantitative information

in connection with the argument or purpose of the

work, though data may be

presented in a less than completely effective format or

some parts of the explication may be uneven.

Uses quantitative information,

but does not effectively connect it to the argument or

purpose of the work.


quantitative evidence is pertinent, but does not provide adequate explicit

numerical support. (May use quasi-

quantitative words such as "many," "few," "increasing," "small," and the

like in place of actual quantities.)

Failed to

meet benchmark.

TOTAL Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Empirical & Quantitative Skills.

Revisions finalized by Academic Assessment Committee in March 2016.


TEAMWORK VALUE RUBRIC

Foundation Component Area (FCA): _______________________ Student Artifact #: ________________ Reviewer Initials: _______________


Score 4 3 2 1 0

Contributes to

Team Meetings

Helps the team move forward by

articulating the merits of alternative ideas

or proposals.

Offers alternative solutions

or courses of action that build

on the ideas of others.

Offers new suggestions to advance

the work of the group.

Shares ideas but does not advance


Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Facilitates the

Contributions of

Team Members

Engages team members in ways that

facilitate their contributions to meetings

by both constructively building upon

synthesizing the contributions of others

as well as noticing when someone is not

participating and inviting them to engage.

Engages team members in

ways that facilitate their

contributions to meetings by

constructively building upon

or synthesizing the

contributions of others.


facilitate their contributions to

meetings by restating the views of

other team members and/or asking

questions for clarification.

Engages team members by taking

turns and listening to others

without interrupting.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Individual

Contributions

Outside of Team

Meetings

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline;

work accomplished is through,

comprehensive, and advances the project.

Proactively helps other team members

complete their assigned tasks to a similar

level.

Completes all assigned tasks

by deadline; work

accomplished in thorough,

comprehensive, and advances

the project.

Completes all assigned tasks by

deadline; work accomplished

advances the project.


deadline.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Fosters

Constructive

Team Climate

Supports a constructive team climate by

doing all of the following:

• Treats team members respectfully by

being polite and constructive in

communication.

• Uses positive vocal or written tone,

facial expressions, and/or body

language to convey a positive attitude

about the team and its work.

• Motivates teammates by expressing

confidence about the importance of the

task and the team's ability to accomplish

it.

• Provides assistance and/or

encouragement to team members.

Supports a constructive team

climate by doing any three of

the following:

• Treats team members

respectfully by being polite

and constructive in

communication.

• Uses positive vocal or

written tone, facial

expressions, and/or body

language to convey a positive

attitude about the team and

its work.

• Motivates teammates by

expressing confidence about

the importance of the task

and the team's ability to

accomplish it.


encouragement to team

members.

Supports a constructive team climate

by doing any two of the following:

• Treats team members respectfully

by being polite and constructive in

communication.






confidence about the importance of

the task and the team's ability to

accomplish it.




climate by doing any one of the

following:


respectfully by being polite and

constructive in communication.

• Uses positive vocal or written

tone, facial expressions, and/or

body language to convey a

positive attitude about the team

and its work.


expressing confidence about the

importance of the task and the

team's ability to accomplish it.



Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Responds to

Conflict

Addresses destructive conflict directly

and constructively, helping to

manage/resolve it in a way that

strengthens overall team cohesiveness

and future effectiveness.

Identifies and acknowledged

conflict and stays engaged

with it.

Redirecting focus toward common

ground, toward task at hand (away

from conflict).

Passively accepts alternate

viewpoints/ideas/opinions.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

TOTAL Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Teamwork. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15




Score 4 3 2 1 0

Contributes to

Team Meetings



or proposals.

Offers alternative solutions

or courses of action that build

on the ideas of others.





Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Facilitates the

Contributions of

Team Members







Engages team members in

ways that facilitate their

contributions to meetings by

constructively building upon

or synthesizing the

contributions of others.


facilitate their contributions to

meetings by restating the views of

other team members and/or asking

questions for clarification.




Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Individual

Contributions

Outside of Team

Meetings






level.

Completes all assigned tasks

by deadline; work

accomplished in thorough,

comprehensive, and advances

the project.





deadline.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Fosters

Constructive

Team Climate



• Treats team members respectfully by

being polite and constructive in

communication.








it.





the following:


respectfully by being polite

and constructive in

communication.

• Uses positive vocal or

written tone, facial

expressions, and/or body

language to convey a positive

attitude about the team and

its work.


expressing confidence about

the importance of the task

and the team's ability to

accomplish it.


encouragement to team

members.

Supports a constructive team climate

by doing any two of the following:

• Treats team members respectfully

by being polite and constructive in

communication.






confidence about the importance of

the task and the team's ability to

accomplish it.





following:


respectfully by being polite and


• Uses positive vocal or written

tone, facial expressions, and/or



and its work.


expressing confidence about the





Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Responds to

Conflict

Addresses destructive conflict directly





Identifies and acknowledged

conflict and stays engaged

with it.

Redirecting focus toward common


from conflict).

Passively accepts alternate


Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

TOTAL Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Teamwork. Version 1.0 Posted 7.22.15

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Thursday, March 3rd, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Minutes from Last Meeting -Please see attached “Academic Assessment Committee Minutes from Meeting” document from Thursday, February 25th.

Core Curriculum Rubric Review

Empirical & Quantitative Skills is defined by THECB as requiring students to “….include the manipulation and analysis of numerical data or observable facts resulting in informed conclusions.” -Review the revised Quantitative Reasoning LEAP VALUE rubric, make revisions to the Communication rubric criterion, and vote to adopt these changes If time….. Teamwork is defined by the THECB as required students to “….include the ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal.” -Discuss the types of other artifacts typically used for Teamwork assessment -Review the Teamwork LEAP VALUE rubric, make revisions, and vote to adopt these changes

Future Meetings We will meet every Thursday from 12-1 in UC 115 until our work is completed. Thus, our next meeting is Thursday, March 10th.

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Thursday, March 10th, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Minutes from Last Meeting -Please see attached “Academic Assessment Committee Minutes from Meeting” document from Thursday, March 3rd.

Core Curriculum Rubrics Vote to approve final changes to Teamwork LEAP VALUE rubric and Quantitative Reasoning LEAP VALUE rubric. CLA+ Need help raising awareness of CLA+ among graduating seniors. SACSCOC On-Site Visit Need to discuss what questions we can expect from the SACSCOC on-site visit later this month. Graduating Student Survey (GSS) The GSS that will be used for Summer 2016 currently includes academic questions focused on….

Students’ self-rated competencies on each of the Texas Core competencies (Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, Teamwork, Empirical & Quantitative Skills, Personal Responsibility, and Social Responsibility)

Students’ self-rated competencies on each of the Texas A&M System competencies (Critical Thinking, Communication, Globalization & Cultural Diversity, Ethical Decision-Making)

Students’ self-reported attitudes and behaviors related to service (volunteering, etc.)

Students’ perceptions of: (1) the overall quality of their education; (2) overall quality of faculty; (3) quality of education within their major/area of concentration; (4) overall quality of faculty within their major/area of concentration.

Need to discuss the current content of the GSS and what assessment-related content faculty would like to include in the survey. This revised version will be announced to faculty at the beginning of the Fall 2016 semester.

Some suggestions…

Perceptions of the quality of support provided by programs for various things (e.g., consideration of career options, advice about current projects and next steps, etc.)

Obstacles to academic success (e.g., financial issues, course scheduling, etc.)

Quality of experiential learning and service-learning activities (if applicable to program)

Others? Future Meetings We will not be meeting Thursday, March 17th, because that is during Spring Break week. Thus, our next meeting with be Thursday, March 24th, from 12-1 in UC 115.

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MEETING Thursday, March 10th, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Committee Members Present: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Jade Jenkins, Dr. Kathleen Missildine, Dr. James Nguyen Committee Members Absent: None. Meeting Start Time: 12:05 Meeting Outcomes

1. Committee members voted to approve final changes to Teamwork LEAP VALUE rubric and Quantitative Reasoning LEAP VALUE rubric.

a. See attached for finalized revised copies of the Quantitative Reasoning rubric and the Teamwork rubric.

2. Committee members discussed the CLA+, with Dr. Ells and Dr. Nguyen agreeing to speak to graduating seniors about participation in the CLA+

3. Dr. Jenkins provided an overview of what to expect from the upcoming SACSCOC onsite visit, including what kinds of questions to expect.

4. Committee members discussed current and anticipated content for the Summer 2016 Graduating Student Survey onward and did not recommend any additional changes.


**Addendum The committee also researched and discussed Core Curriculum professional development activities and resources via email in late March and through mid-April.

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Teamwork.






Score 4 3 2 1 0

Contributes to

Team Meetings



or proposals.

Offers alternative solutions or

courses of action that build on

the ideas of others.





Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Facilitates the

Contributions of

Team Members







Engages team members in ways

that facilitate their contributions

to meetings by constructively

building upon or synthesizing

the contributions of others.

Engages team members in ways

that facilitate their contributions to

meetings by paraphrasing the

views of other team members

and/or asking questions for

clarification.




Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Individual

Contributions

Outside of Team

Meetings






level.


deadline; work accomplished is

thorough, comprehensive, and






deadline.

Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Fosters

Constructive

Team Climate



• Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in

communication.

• Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body






it.

• Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.



the following:

• Treats team members respectfully by being polite and


• Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or



and its work.

• Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the



• Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team

members.


climate by doing any two of the

following:






and its work.







following:






and its work.





Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

Manages Conflict Addresses destructive conflict directly





Identifies and acknowledges

conflict and attempts to address

it.

Redirects focus toward common


from conflict).

Passively avoids conflicts over

alternate


Failed to

meet

Benchmark.

TOTAL Score

Rubric selected and approved in January 2013 by the Core Curriculum sub-committee of the A3C to assess Core artifacts on Empirical & Quantitative Skills.






Benchmark Section

Score 4 3 2 1 0

Interpretation Ability to explain information

presented quantitatively (e.g.,


tables, words)

Provide accurate explanations of

information presented quantitatively.

Makes appropriate inferences based on

that information. For example,

accurately explains the trend data

shown in a graph and makes

reasonable predictions regarding what

the data suggest about future events.

Provides accurate explanations

of information presented

quantitatively. For instance,

accurately explains this trend

data shown in a graph.

Provides somewhat accurate

explanations of information

presented quantitatively, but

occasionally makes minor

errors related to computations

or units. For instance,

accurately explains trend data

shown in a graph, but may

miscalculate the slop of the

trend line.

Attempts to explain information

presented quantitatively, but draws

incorrect conclusions about what the

information means. For example,

attempts to explain the trend data


misinterpret the nature of that trend,

perhaps by confusing positive and

negative trends.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.


information quantitatively (e.g.,


tables, words)

Skillfully converts relevant information

into a quantitative representation in a

way that contributes to a deeper

understanding.


information into an appropriate

and accurate quantitative

representation.



quantitative representation is

only partially appropriate or

accurate.


but resulting quantitative representation

is inappropriate or inaccurate.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Calculation Calculations attempted are all correct

and sufficiently comprehensive to solve

the problem. Calculations are also

presented elegantly (clearly, concisely,

etc.)


mostly correct and sufficiently

comprehensive to solve the

problem.


either incorrect or represent

only a portion of the

calculations required to


problem.


incorrect and are not comprehensive.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

Analysis Ability to make judgments and


based on the quantitative analysis

of data, while recognizing the



the basis for deep and thoughtful

judgments, drawing, insightful,

carefully qualified conclusions from

this work.



competent judgments, drawing

reasonable and appropriately

qualified conclusions from this

work.



simplistic (without inspiration

or nuance, ordinary)





although is hesitant or uncertain about

drawing conclusions from this work.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.


in support of the argument or

purpose of the work (in terms of

what evidence is used and how it

is formatted, presented, and

contextualized)



purpose of the work, and the argument

being made is complete AND clear.


in connection with the

argument or purpose of the

work, and the argument being

made is complete OR clear.


in connection with the

argument or purpose of the

work, but the argument being

made is incomplete not clear.


quantitative evidence is pertinent, but

the argument is disconnected or barely

explains this quantitative evidence.

Failed to

meet

benchmark.

TOTAL Score

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Thursday, April 21st, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Minutes from Last Meeting -Please see attached “Academic Assessment Committee Minutes from Meeting” document from Thursday, March 10th.

Review of Program Assessments Committee members will need to discuss the protocol for conducting reviews of program-level assessments. Future Meetings We will slightly delay the date of our next meeting to allow more time for academic programs to submit their program outcomes assessment information in Taskstream. Tentatively, I set aside time on Thursday, May 5th (the last day of classes) to provide hard copies of materials, to provide resources, and to answer questions about reviewing program assessments.

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA

Thursday, April 21st, 2016, in UC 115 from 12-1

Members in attendance: Dr. Kevin Ells, Dr. Jade Jenkins, Dr. James Nguyen

Members absent: Dr. Kathleen Missildine

Meeting start time and end time not recorded.

Committee members received assignments for academic program outcomes review and

reviewed the criteria and protocol for conducting these reviews. Some of this discussion

featured information on the attached page.

Review of Program Assessment Plans

Goals of the Review

Encourage greater clarity of content

Share resources

Questions to Ask When Reviewing

Measures

-Is each measure a good “fit” for the SLO each measure is intended to support?

-Can you clearly understand how the measure actually measures the construct of interest? In

other words, is the data easy to interpret or are there ambiguities and/or missing information?

-Has a copy of each measure (such as exam items, assignment instructions, questionnaire items,

etc.) been uploaded?

--NOTE: It may not always be possible to provide this information. Use of exam

performance data warrants that those exam items should be uploaded, but use of a Major

Field Exam does not warrant supporting documentation because that information is not

accessible.

Performance Standards

-Are acceptable performance targets and ideal performance targets provided for each measure?

--NOTE: Setting different acceptable and ideal standards for the same measure isn’t always necessary, such as when monitoring whether students did or did not do something

(e.g., completion of ethics training module) or when students participate in a pass/fail

activity (e.g., certification).

-Is each pair of acceptable/ideal targets easily understood?

-If a performance standard seems unusual (such as being lower than expected), has additional

information been provided to contextualize the performance standard?

--NOTE: If a standard is perceived to be lower than expected, it may be the case that

long-term patterns in student performance reveal that the performance target may indeed

be an appropriate “stretch goal” for those students (as opposed to a target that seems like

it would be too easy for them on first glance). Alternatively, perhaps national norms on a

standardized activity are not high to begin with. These examples—and others not

mentioned here—would be important information for programs to include as a note if it is

not already apparent from the assessment plan.

Other

-Is the implementation timeline clear?

-Is it easy to understand exactly who will be responsible for administering this measure,

collecting data for this measure, and/or synthesizing results for assessment reporting purposes?

Documents

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING … · documentation for this set: 1. Documentation for each meeting begins with a copy of the meeting agenda. 2. Copies of additional materials