Appendix 56 Table of Assessment Findings and Transforming Actions by Colleges and Academic Programs 08 10

8/2/2019 Appendix 56 Table of Assessment Findings and Transforming Actions by Colleges and Academic Programs 08 10

1/242

Table of Assessment Findingsand Transforming Actions byColleges and AcademicPrograms

(Academic Year 2008-2010)


2/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNING

Appendix XII: Table of Assessment Findings and Transforming Actions by Colleges and Academic Programs

Academic Years 2008-2010 (revised [*] January, 2011)

I. Effective Communicationa. College of Natural Sciences

i. Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciencesii. Physics

iii. Chemistryiv. Biology*v. Mathematics

vi. Computer Scienceb. College of Business Administration

i. Office System Management*ii. Accounting

iii. Economicsiv. Statisticsv. Finance

vi. Production and Operations Managementvii. Human Resources

viii. Marketingix. Business Administration General Program


3/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGx. Computer Information System

c. College of Humanitiesi. Hispanic Studies

ii. Comparative Literatureiii. Modern Languagesiv. Art History*v. History of Europe

vi. History of the Americasvii. Fine Arts

viii. Performing Artsix. Musicx. English Communication and Linguistics

xi. English Literaturexii. Interdisciplinary Studies

d. College of Social Sciencesi. Social Work

ii. Economics*iii. Political Scienceiv. General Program in Social Sciencesv. Geography*

vi. Sociology*


4/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGvii. Anthropology*

viii. Psychologyix. Labor Relations*

e. College of General Studiesi. General Studies Bachelor Program

f. College of Educationi. Teacher Preparation Programs

ii. Recreationiii. Nutrition and Dietetics

g. School of Communicationi. Audiovisual Communication*

ii. Information and Journalismiii. Public Relations and Advertisement

h. School of Architecturei. Environmental Design

II. Critical Thinkinga. College of Natural Sciences

i. Chemistryii. Physics

iii. Mathematicsiv. Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciences


5/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGv. Environmental Sciences*

b. College of Humanitiesi. Art History*

ii. History of Europeiii. History of the Americasiv.

Hispanic Studies

v. English Communication and Linguisticsvi. English Literature

vii. Comparative Literatureviii. Fine Arts

ix. Musicx. Modern Languages

c. School of Communicationi. Audiovisual Communication*

ii.

Information and Journalismiii. Public Relations and Advertisement

d. College of Social Sciencesi. Political Science

ii. Economics*iii. Geography*iv. Psychology


6/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGv. Labor Relations*

vi. Anthropology*vii. Sociology*

e. College of Educationi. Teacher Preparation Programs

f. College of Business Administrationi. Office System Management*

III. Research and Creationa. College of Social Sciences

i. Anthropology*ii. Sociology*

iii. Social Workiv. Labor Relations*v. Psychology*

vi.

Geography*

b. College of Business Administration

i. Core Programsc. College of Humanities

i. Fine Artsii. Art History*

iii. History of the Americas


7/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGiv. History of Europev. Performing Arts

d. College of Natural Sciencesi. Computer Science*

ii. Chemistryiii. Physicsiv. Biology*v. Mathematics

vi. Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciencesvii. Environmental Sciences*

e. College of General Studiesi. General Studies Bachelor Program

f. College of Educationi. Nutrition and Dietetics

ii. Recreation

IV. Social Responsibilitya. College of Social Sciences

i. Anthropology*ii. Sociology*

iii. Labor Relations*


8/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGiv. Geography*v. Economics*

b. College of Business Administrationi. Core Programs

ii. Office System Managementc. College of Natural Sciences

i.

Computer Sciences

ii. Environmental Sciencesiii. Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciencess

d. School of Communicationi. Information and Journalism

ii. Public Relations and Advertisementiii. Audiovisual Communication*

e. College of Educationi. Teacher Preparation Programs

f.

School of Architecture

i. Environmental Design

V. Logical-mathematical reasoninga. College of Natural Sciences

i. Biology*ii. Mathematics


9/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGiii. Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciences

b. College of General Studiesi. General Studies Bachelor Program

VI. Appreciation, culture and commitment to the ideals of the Puerto Rican society, Caribbean and International contexta. College of Education

i. Teacher Preparation Programs

VII. Ongoing Learninga. College of Education

i. Nutrition and Dietetics

VIII. Capacity for independent studiesa. College of Business Administration

i. Core Programsb. College of Natural Sciences

i. Computer Sciences

IX. Intellectual curiositya. College of Natural Sciences


10/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGi. Computer Sciences

b. College of Educationi. Nutrition and Dietetics

X. Information Literacya. College of Natural Sciences

i. Interdisciplinary Program in Natural Sciencesii. Mathematics

b. College of Business Administrationi. Core Programs

c. College of Educationi. Teacher Preparation Programs

d. College of Social Sciencesi. Anthropology*

ii. Sociology*iii. Geography*iv. Labor Relations*

XI. Ethical and Aesthetical Sensibilitya. College of Social Sciences

i. Geography*


11/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGii. Economics*

XII. Technology integrationa. College of Natural Sciences

i. Mathematics

b. College of Business Administrationi. Office System Management*

XIII. Globalizationa. College of Business Administration

i. Office System Management*XIV. Content Knowledge, Skills or Dispositions Competencies in the Academic Programs

a. College of Natural Sciencesi. Chemistry

ii. Physicsiii. Environmental Sciencesiv. Computer Science*

b. College of Humanitiesi. Art History*


12/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGii. English Communication and Linguistics

iii. English Literatureiv. Fine Artsv. Music

vi. Performing Arts

c. College of Educationi. Recreation

ii. Nutrition and Dieteticsiii. Teacher Preparation Programs*

d. College of Social Sciencesi. Political Science

ii. Economics*iii. Geographyiv. Labor Relations*v. Anthropology

vi. Sociologyvii. Psychology*

e. College of Business Administrationi. Accounting

ii. Office System Management*


13/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGf. School of Architecture

i. Environmental Design


14/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGEffective Communication Skills - Ability to express oneself effectively in oral and written language that insures a clear, coherent and accurate

communication.

College of Natural SciencesAcademic Programs Findings Transforming Actions

Interdisciplinary Program In

Natural Sciences2008-2009

99% of the students obtained a score of 500 or more in

the verbal aptitude section of the College Entrance

Examination administered by the College Board of

Puerto Rico (CEEB).

In a test offered in August 2008 and developed by the

CEEB to evaluate the writing skills of the incoming

class. Findings were:

When assessing the essay as a whole, 76 of 86

students (88%) obtained below the average scores

(50). These results showed that students have

limited abilities in writing skills.

When assessing the Theme and Structure

criterion, 64 of 86 students (74%) obtained below

the average scores (50). These results showed

that students have limited abilities in

developing the topic and the structure of an

essay.

When assessing the Syntactic Structure criterion, 28of 86 students (33%) obtained below average

scores (50). These results showed that students

have limited abilities in understanding the

morphosyntactic aspects of their native

language, such as in the equivalence of the

spoken and written language and in using

logical connectors.

When assessing the lexical competency criterion, 24of 86 students (28%) obtained below average

scores (50). Findings showed that students have

2008-2009

Although the students showed good verbal aptitude on the

College Entrance Examination, a great need to improve

students writing is evident. All incoming students that

obtained low scores on the writing test administered by the

CEEB were advised through a letter about the desirability of

strengthening their communication skills in the language where

deficiencies were identified, through the attendance of

workshops offered by the Center for the Development of

Language Competencies (CDLC) of the General Education

College or by enrolling on an additional Spanish or English

courses.

Due to the low percentage of students who followed the

recommendation from their academic advisors to takeadditional English or Spanish courses, further advising about

the need to strengthen their writing skills in both languages will

be given.


15/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGsome deficiencies in employing discursive

coherence and cohesion, as well as poor lexical

skills, which are elements required when

writing an essay.

When assessing the Correct Grammar Usage

criterion, 22 of 86 (26%) obtained below average

scores (50). Findings showed that students

make some orthographic errors when writing

an essay.

Findings revealed that more than 50% of students

showed serious writing problems.

The ELASH II, English test administered by the

CEEB to test the effected communication skills in

English, was administered to the incoming class in

August 2008. Findings were:

In the listening comprehension criterion, 45 of 47

students (96%) obtained scores greater than the

cut point (106 low intermediate). Of these

students, 26 showed a competency level of high

intermediate (55%) ,and 19 students (40%)

showed to be on an advanced level.

In the language usage and indirect writing criterion,

23 of 47 students (49%) obtained scores greater

than the cut point (125 low intermediate). Of

these students, 15 showed a competency level ofhigh intermediate (32%) and 8 students (17%)

showed to be on an advanced level.

In the reading comprehension criterion, 26 of 47




intermediate (47%), and 4 students (9%) showed

to be on an advanced level.

Recommendations to take an additional English course weregiven to 25 first year students who obtained low scores on the

English Language Assessment for Hispanics Test (ELASH II)

in order to strengthen their skills in this language. 25% of the

students followed the recommendation and took Scientific

Writing course (INGL 3236) or Expository Writing III course

(INGL 3286).


16/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGAs a result of these findings, recommendations were

made to 76 students in order for the to strengthen their

writing skills in Spanish. Only 8 students followed

these recommendations (9%). They enrolled in the

course ESPA 3208 (Writing and Style).

2009-2010

Analysis of 2008-2009 enrollment of the English and

Spanish courses showed that 19 students took the

basic Spanish courses (ESPA 3003-04), 63 took the

regular Spanish courses (ESPA 3101-020, and 36 took

the honor Spanish courses (ESPA 3111-12). Also,this year 27 students took the basic English courses

(INGL 3003-04), 63 the regular English courses

(INGL 3101-02), 47 the English honor courses (INGL

3103-04), 7 took the English courses ( INGL 3011-

12), and 18 took the academic writing course by

taking the computer English course (INGL 3123-24).

The expected outcome was that at least 70% of the

students would approve these courses.

Findings revealed that the rate of approval of these

courses were:

For Spanish courses:

ESPA 3003-04 - 90%

ESPA 3101-02 - 95%

ESPA 3111-12 - 87%

For English courses:

INGL3003-04 - 90%

INGL3101-02 - 97%

INGL 3103-04 - 91%

INGL 3011 and 3012 - 80%

INGL 3123-24 - 84%

Thus, the expected outcome was met.

2009-2010

A recommendation was given to the laboratory coordinators to

use the rubric on a higher number of sections in order to

increase the number of students who could benefit from this

assessment process.

A recommendation was given to the laboratory coordinator to

use the rubric on a higher number of sections in order to


17/242

A


When assessing effective writing skills by using a

rubric in the Physics laboratory course reports (FISI

3013), 100% of the students obtained 3 or more on a

four point scale in the first report assessed, 81%obtained a 3 or more in a four point scale in the

second report, and 100% obtained 3 or more on a four

point scale in the third report. Thus, the expected

outcome that 70% of the students would obtain an

average score of 3 points or more was met in all

three reports assessed.

When assessing effective writing skills by using arubric in the Physics laboratory course reports (FISI

3014), 100% of the students obtained 3 or more on a

four point scale in all three laboratory reports

assessed. Thus, the expected outcome that 70% of

the students would obtain an average score of 3

points or more was met in all three reports

assessed.

When assessing effective writing skills by using arubric in the General Biology course (BIOL 3101),

83% of the students obtained a score of 2 or more in a

three point scale, exceeding the 70% expected

outcome. Thus, the expected outcome that 70% of

the students would obtain an average score of 2

points or more was met in all three of the reports

assessed.

increase the number of students who could benefit from this

assessment process.

Physics 2008-2009

In a test developed by the CEEB to evaluate the

writing skills of the incoming class offered in August

2008. Findings were:


students (91%) obtained below average scores



2008-2009

Letters were sent to students that showed need to improve their

writing skills as assessed in the CEEBs test, requesting them

to attend workshops offered by the Center for the Development

of Language Competencies (CDLC) of the General Education

College in order to strengthen their writing skills. Since there is

no evidence that students attended these workshops, a second

letter will be sent to that effect to the FISI 3174 students.

Writing communication skills will be emphasized in the higher

level course FISI 4077.


18/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGWhen assessing the Theme and Structure


average scores (50). These results showed that

students have limited abilities in developing the

topic and the structure of an essay.

When assessing the Syntactic Structure criterion, 8 of

23 students (35%) obtained below average scores


limited abilities in comprehending the


language, such as in understanding the

equivalence of the spoken and writtenlanguage, and in using logical connectors.

When assessing the lexical competency criterion, 22

of 23 students (96%) obtained below average


deficiencies in employing discursive coherence

and cohesion, as well as poor lexical skills,

which are elements required when writing an

essay.



average scores (50). Findings showed that

students made orthographic errors when

writing an essay.

Findings revealed that 12.5% of the studentsobtained scores over the average mean.

However, the majority of the students, (87.5%)

obtained scores lower than the mean on the test

(50 points).





A


19/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGIn the listening comprehension criterion, 14 of 14




intermediate (50%), and 7 students (50%) showedto be on an advanced level.

In the language usage and indirect writing criterion,7

of 14 students (50%) obtained scores greater than

the cut point (125 low intermediate). Of these






cut point (125 low intermediate). Of thesestudents, 5 showed a competency level of high



When assessing effective writing skills by using arubric in the Physics laboratory reports (FISI 3174 and

FISI 4077), in the criteria of communication, format,

and style, findings were the following: in the first

laboratory report assessed, the students obtained an

average score of 2.7 (67.5%) and 3.4 (85%) in a four

point scale, respectively. Thus, the expected

outcome of 3.2 points (80%) was not met in the

lower level course (FISI 3174), but it was met onthe higher level course (FISI 4077).


rubric in the writing section of the Physics laboratory

reports (FISI 3174 and FISI 4077), the students

obtained an average score of 2.7 out of a total of 4

points (67.5%). Thus, the expected outcome that the

students would obtain an average of 3.2 points was

not met.

A class period will be dedicated to teach how to prepare a

laboratory report with examples and with the appropriateformat and writing style.

A class period will be dedicated to teach how to prepare a

laboratory report with examples and with the appropriate

format and writing style.

A


20/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGWhen assessing effective writing skills by using a

rubric in all intermediate Physics laboratory course

reports (FISI 4076-77), students obtained an average

score of 3.4 (85%) on a four point scale in the writing

section. Thus, the expected outcome that thestudents would obtain an average of 3.2 score was

exceeded.

2009-2010


rubric in the Physics laboratory reports in FISI 3173,

the students obtained an average score of 3.2 (80%).Thus, the expected outcome that the students

would obtain an average of 3.2 score was met.


rubric in the Physics laboratory reports in FISI 4076,

the students obtained a scored 3.2 or more. Thus, the

expected outcome that the students would obtain

an average of 3.2 (80%) score was met.

2009-2010

Letters will be resent to students through the Academic Advisor

urging them to attend the workshops offered by the CDCL of

the Faculty of General Studies or to enroll in Spanish writing

courses.

Emphasis on effective communication skills will continue in

this course.

Chemistry 2008-2009

In a test, offered in August 2008 and developed by the


class, findings were:


students (79%) obtained below average scores(50). These results showed that students have







When assessing the Syntactic Structure criterion, 20

2008-2009

The Academic Advisors advised the students that obtained low

scores in this test to take an additional writing course in

Spanish.

Promote more effectively the workshops offered by the CDCL

throughout the student body.

A


21/242

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGof 77 students (26%) obtained below average


have limited abilities in comprehending the


language, such as in understating theequivalence of the spoken and written language

and using logical connectors.




some deficiencies in employing discursive

coherence and cohesion, as well as poor lexicalskills, which are elements required when

writing an essay.




students made slight orthographic errors when

writing an essay.

Findings revealed that 20.8% of the students

obtained a score of 50 points or more.









intermediate (41%), and 91 students (51%) an

advanced level.


28 of 37 students (76%) obtained scores greaterthan the cut point (125 low intermediate). Of

A


22/242


these students, 14 showed a competency level of

high intermediate (38%), and 14 students (38%)

an advanced level.

In the reading comprehension criterion, 27 of 37students (73%) obtained scores greater than the


students, 17 showed a competency level of

intermediate to high (46%) and 10 students (27%)

an advanced level.


rubric in the General Chemistry laboratory reports inQUIM 3001L, 82.4% of the students obtained a score

of 85% or more in the writing section. Thus, the

expected outcome that 70% of the students would

obtain a score of 70% or more was met.

When assessing effective communication skills in an

oral presentation and in a special project by using a

rubric in the General Chemistry laboratory reports ofthe course QUIM 3002L, 85.7% of the students

obtained a score of 85% or more in the writing

section. Thus, the expected outcome that 70% of

the students would obtain a score of 70% or more

was met.

2009-2010

Assessment data is in the process of being analyzed.

Provide students the rubric used for the assessment of the oral

presentation and for the special project previous to its

assignments.

2009-2010

Corresponding transforming actions will be submitted by the

end of the second semester.

Biology 2008-2009





students (84%) obtained scores below the average


2008-2009

All incoming students that obtained low scores on the writing

test administered by the CEEB were advised through their

Academic Advisor about the need to strengthen their

communication skills in the language where deficiencies were

identified. They were advised to attend workshops offered by

the Center for the Development of Languages Competencies

(CDLC) of the General Education College or to enroll on an

A


23/242


limited abilities in written skills.


criterion, 161 of 243 students (66%) obtained

scores below the average (50). These resultsshowed that students have limited abilities in

the development of a topic and the structure of

an essay.

When assessing the Syntactic Structure criterion 81



have limited abilities in comprehending themorphosyntactic aspects of their native

language, such as understanding the

equivalence of the spoken and written language





some deficiencies in employing discursivecoherence and cohesion, as well as poor lexical


writing an essay.


criterion, 56 of 243 students (23%) obtained

below average scores (50). Findings showed that

students made some orthographic errors whenwriting an essay.

Seventy four (74%) of the admitted students to the

Biology Department from the 2008-2009 cohort took

the Spanish Writing test administered by the College

Board of Puerto Rico. Findings revealed that 84% of

the students obtained scores that reflect the need to

improve their skills in this competency (they obtained

50 points less on the test). This represents 62% of theadmitted students to the program.

additional Spanish or English course. Only 16% of the students

referred to the CDLC attended at least one workshop.

Mechanisms will be identified in order to increase the number

of students who participate in the workshops offered by theCDLC.

The Campus must guarantee that the students who complete the

A


24/242











advanced level.




these students, 46 showed a competency level ofhigh intermediate (42%), and 45 students (41%)

an advanced level.


students (83%) obtained scores greater than thecut point (125 low intermediate). Of these



advanced level.

An analysis of 2008-2009 admitted students from the

2007 and 2008 cohorts was submitted by the Office of

Academic Planning (OPA, its Spanish acronym)regarding the enrollment and rate of approval of the

English and Spanish courses. It revealed that only 6%

took the English basic course (INGL 3003-04). Thus

the majority of students from this cohort (94%) either

took the regular or honor English courses, or have

approved them through the Advanced Placement Test.

Findings revealed that the rate of approval of English

courses for these cohorts were:

6 credit English course requirements with the basic English

courses (INGL3003-04) develop university level competencies

in this language through workshops and courses recommended

by their the academic advisers.

At the moment, we are meeting our expectations regarding the

approval rate of English and Spanish courses. Students that do

not approve these courses in the first two years should be

identified and referred the CDLC.

A


25/242


INGL3101 - 94%; INGL 3102 - 93%

INGL3011 - 87%; INGL 3012 - 82%

INGL 3103 - 95%; INGL 3104 - 91%

Findings revealed that the rate of approval of Spanishcourses for these cohorts were:

ESPA 3101 - 86%; ESPA 3102 - 90%

ESPA 3111 - 98%; ESPA 3112 - 88%

ESPA 3001 - 88%; ESPA 3002 - 95%


rubric in the Ecology course (BIOL 3112), thestudents obtained an average score of 83% in the

writing section of their reports. Thus, the expected

outcome that 70% of the students would obtain a

score of 70% or more was met.

When assessing writing skills on special projects by

using a rubric in the Ecology course (BIOL 3112), the

students obtained an average score of 76% in the first

project and 84% in the second one. Thus, theexpected outcome that 70% of the students would

obtain a score of 70% or more was met on both

occasions.


rubric in the laboratory reports of the Genetics course

(BIOL 3350), the students obtained an average score

of 95% in the first report and 91% on the second one.Thus, the expected outcome that 70% of the

students would obtain a score of 70% or more was

met on both occasions.

2009-2010


rubric in the General Biology course (BIOL 3101, first

checkpoint), it was expected that 65% of the studentswould reach the level of good on the rubric; 35% of

Uniform assessment instruments will be used in the data

gathered.

2009-2010

The rubric used to assess writing skills during the academic

year 2008-2009 was simplified considerably. The rubric used to

assess projects of the BIOL3112 course will be modified.

Graduate students who are laboratory instructors will be trained

A


26/242


the students enrolled on this course were assessed.

Findings were:

16% of the students reached the level ofexcellent;

26% of the students reached the level ofgood;

44% of the students reached the level ofregular;14% of the students reached did not comply with the

criteria assessed.

Thus, the expected outcome that 65% of the

students would reach the level of good in the rubric

was not met.

When assessing effective writing skills by using arubric in the Genetics Laboratory and Ecology course

(BIOL 3350 and 3112, third checkpoint), it was

expected that 55% of the students would reach the

level of excellent on the rubric. 100% of the students

enrolled on the courses were assessed by using two

different rubrics. Findings were:



8% of the students reached the level ofregular;

Thus, the expected outcome that 55% of the

students would reach the level of excellent in the

rubric was met on both occasions.


rubric in the Ecology and Genetics Laboratory courses

(BIOL 3350 and 3112, third checkpoint), it wasexpected that 55% of the students would reach the

level of excellent on the rubric. One hundred percent

of the students enrolled on the courses were assessed

by using a rubric.

Findings were:

Ecology Lab - BIOL3112

46% of the students reached the level of

through workshops in the use of the rubric and in the

assessment of laboratory reports.

Assessments results will be discussed with the Course

Coordinators and with the Curriculum Committee of the

Biology Department in order to propose and implement the

corresponding transforming actions.

A


27/242


excellent;


2% of the students reached the level ofregular;

Genetics Lab - BIOL 3350



5% of the students reached the level ofregular;Thus, the expected outcome that 55% of the students

would reach the level of excellent in the rubric was

not met on both courses.

Mathematics 2008-2009














of 32 students (53%) obtained below averagescores (50). These results showed that students


2008-2009





identified, through the attendance of workshops offered by the

Center for the Development of Language Competencies

(CDLC) of the General Education College or by enrolling on an

additional Spanish or English course.

A


28/242












writing an essay.




students made some orthographic errors when

writing an essay.



English, was administered to the incoming class inAugust 2008. Findings were:






advanced level.

In the language usage and indirect writing criterion, 7





advanced level.


A


29/242





advanced level.

2009-2010

When assessing effective writing skills by using arubric in the undergraduate seminar (MATE 4995),

the expected outcome was that at least 70% of the

students would obtain a score of 8 or more points out

of a 10 point scale. Findings revealed that 6 out of the7 students assessed (86%) obtained a score of 8 ormore in the rubric. Thus, the expected outcome was

met.


rubric in the laboratory reports of the probabilitycourse (MATE 5001), the expected outcome was that

at least 70% of the students would obtain a score of 8

or more points out of a 10 point scale. Findings

revealed that 6 out of the 9 students assessed (67%)

obtained a score of 8 or more in the rubric. Thus, the

expected outcome was not met. Only two students,

who are double majors, included bibliographic quotes

in their laboratory reports text, although all students

included references.

2009-2010

Explicitly include topics related to the search and proper use of

references in the undergraduate seminars.

Identify courses in which written reports can be useful

assessment tools to increase the number of reports that students

should develop during their studies.

Computer Sciences 2008-2009









2008-2009

Students will be advised again to attend CDLC workshops to

improve their communication skills in Spanish.

A


30/242









some limited abilities in comprehending the











essay.




student made slight orthographic errors when

writing an essay.

Findings revealed that of the 17 students from this

program who took the test,none were found

competent as defined by the rubric.








A


31/242



advanced level.


of 6 students (83%) obtained scores greater thanthe cut point (125 low intermediate). Of these



advanced level.





intermediate (83%).

Findings revealed that in the English Language

Assessment Test For Hispanics (ELASH II), 83%

of the students, who took the test, from this

academic program (5 out of 6) were found

competent as defined by the rubric.

When assessing effective oral communication skills in

an oral presentation of the topic assigned in the course

CCOM 3892, all the students (17, 100%) that gave the

oral presentation were found competent as defined by

the rubric. Thus, the goal of 70% or more was met.

2009-2010


an oral presentation of the CCOM 4027 course, 77%

of the students that gave the oral presentation were

competent as defined by the rubric. Thus, the goal of

70% or more was met.

2009-2010

No immediate action is needed at this moment since the

expected outcome was met.

A

OFFICEOF EVALUATIONOF STUDENT LEARNING


32/242


College of Business Administration

Academic Programs Findings Transforming Actions

Office Systems Management 2008-2009






(50). These results showed that students havelimited abilities in writing skills.




















essay.



2008-2009

Students will be advised again to attend CDLC workshops to

improve their communication skills in Spanish.

A



33/242

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGaverage scores (50). Findings showed that


writing an essay.

The ELASH II, English test administered by theCEEB to test the effected communication skills in








advanced level.

In the language use and indirect writing criterion, 11of 20 students (55%) obtained scores greater than




advanced level.





intermediate (30%), and one student (5%) an

advanced level.

When assessing effective communication skills in

Spanish using a diagnostic examination, 33% of the

students obtained a score of 70% in the exam. Thus,

the expected outcome that 70% of the students

would obtain 70% on this test was not met.

When assessing effective communication skills in

English using a diagnostic examination, 79% of the

students obtained a score of 70% or more in test.Thus, the expected outcome that 70% of the

The Department of Office System Management will begin

offering systematic tutoring and mentoring services to the

students in August 2009.

Some faculty members will give tutoring services in their office

hours.

The transforming actions proposed will be evaluated through

post-tests and practice exercises.

A



34/242

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGstudents would obtain 70% on this test was met.

2009-2010

A diagnostic test was given to the incoming class to

assess effective communication skills in Spanish inthe ADSO 3055 course (October, 2009). Findings

were:

Two students of a total of 14 (14%) obtainedscores between 60%-64% on the test.

Five students of a total of 14 (36%) obtainedscores between 50%-59% on the test.

Seven students of 14 (50%) obtained scoreslower than 49% on the test.

A diagnostic test was given to the incoming class to

assess effective communication skills in English in the

ADSO 3055 course (October, 2009). Findings were:

Two students of a total of 14 (14%) obtainedscores between 80%-84% on the test.

Three students of a total of 14 (21%) obtainedscores between 64%-68% on the test.

Four students of 14 (29%) obtained scores

between 50%-59% on the test.

Five students of 14 (36%) obtained scoreslower than 49% on the test.

2009-2010

Corresponding transforming actions will be submitted by the

end of the second semester.

Business Administration Core

(7 programs)

2008-2009


oral presentations, findings revealed that on average

the students (88%) avoid the use of Anglicism, and90% of them demonstrated proper use of audiovisual

resources. Thus, the expected outcome that the

majority would obtain 70% in the assessment of

these criteria was met.

2008-2009

A program to integrate effective communication skills to the

curriculum (ICCAC) is led by the Associate Dean Prof.

Fernandez. The Program should offer formative activities to allthe students who obtained scores less than 70% in the oral

presentations such as:

a)Learning to modulate the voice and the speed of speech

in an oral presentation.

b)Recognizing their use of language crutches.c)Maintaining an appropriate visual contact with the

audience.

d)

Using facial expressions, gestures and postures thatconvey the desired message to the audience.

e) Being more persuasive.

A



35/242


Effective writing communication skills were assessedon a written paper in the Introduction to Business

course. Although the assessment data has been

gathered, it is in the process of being analyzed.In a test, offered in August 2008 and developed by the


class, findings by major were:

Accounting:






criterion, 123 of 172 students (72%) obtainedbelow average scores (50). These results showed

that students have limited abilities in


essay.











scores (50). Findings showed that students havesome deficiencies in employing discursive

f) Promoting interaction with the audience.

g) Demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the topic to be

presented.

The analysis of the data gathered will be completed by the endof the academic year.

The ICCAC program will develop formative activities tointegrate and enhance effective communication throughout the

curriculum.







(CDLC) of the General Education College, the Departments of

Spanish and English Business Communication or by enrollingon an additional Spanish or English course.

A



36/242



writing an essay.

When assessing the Correct Grammar Usagecriterion, 83 of 172 students (48%) obtained

below average scores (50). Findings showed that


writing an essay.










advanced level.





high intermediate (39%), and 15 students (16%)

an advanced level.




intermediate (48%), and 6 student (7%) an

advanced level.

Economics:

When assessing the essay as a whole, 1 of 2 students(50%) obtained below average scores (50). These

A



37/242

results showed one student has limited abilities

in writing skills.

When assessing the Theme and Structure criterion, 0

of 2 students (0%) obtained below average scores(50). These results showed that the two

students assessed have the necessary abilities of


essay.



(50). These results showed that the two

students assessed have the necessary

comprehension of the morphosyntactic

aspect of their native language, such as

understanding the equivalence of the spoken

and written language, and using logical

connectors.

When assessing the lexical competency criterion, 0 of

2 students (0%) obtained below average scores(50). Findings showed that the two students

assessed have the necessary abilities of

employing discursive coherence and cohesion,

as well as lexical skills, which are elements

required when writing an essay.



average scores (50). Findings showed that one

student made orthographic errors when

writing an essay.

The ELASH II, English administered by the CEEB to

test the effected communication skills in English, was

administered to the incoming class in August 2008.

Findings were:

In the listening comprehension criterion, one student

A



38/242

(100%) obtained a score greater than the cut point

(106 low intermediate); this student achieved a

competency level of high intermediate.

In the language use and indirect writing criterion, thestudent assessed did not obtain a score greater

than the cut point (125 low intermediate).

In the reading comprehension criterion, thestudent assessed did not obtain a score greater


Statistics:

When assessing the essay as a whole, the student

assessed obtained a score below the average (50).

These results showed that this student has



criterion, the student assessed did not obtain a

below average score (50). These results showedthat the student assessed has the necessary

abilities of developing the topic and the

structure of an essay.

When assessing the Syntactic Structure criterion, the

student assessed did not obtain a score below the

average (50). These results showed that the

student assessed has the necessary

comprehension in the morphosyntactic

aspects of its native language, such as

understanding the equivalence of the spoken

and written language, as well as using logical

connectors.

When assessing the lexical competency criterion, the

student assessed did not obtain a score below the

average (50). Findings showed that the studentassessed has the necessary abilities of

A



39/242

employing discursive coherence and cohesion,

as well as lexical skills, which are elements

required when writing an essay.

When assessing the Correct Grammar Usagecriterion, the student assessed did not obtain a

score below the average (50). Findings showed

that the student did not make orthographic

errors when writing an essay.




Findings were:

In the listening comprehension criterion, the student

assessed did not obtain a score greater than the cut

point (106 low intermediate).


the student assessed did not obtain a score greater


In the reading comprehension criterion, thestudent assessed did not obtain a score greater


Finance:






criterion, 29 of 34 students (85%) obtained belowaverage scores (50). These results showed that

A



40/242











of 34 students (38%) obtained below averagescores (50). Findings showed that students have




essay.


criterion, 12 of 34 students (35%) obtained belowaverage scores (50). Findings showed that


writing an essay.










advanced level.

In the language usage and indirect writing criterion, 8of 17 students (47%) obtained scores greater than

A



41/242




advanced level.





advanced level.

Production and Operations Management











have limited abilities in developing the topic

and the structure of an essay.









When assessing the lexical competency criterion, 3 of13 students (23%) obtained below average scores

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNING(50) Fi di h d th t t d t h


42/242

(50). Findings showed that students have some




essay.





writing an essay.


CEEB to test the effected communication skills inEnglish, was administered to the incoming class in






intermediate (44%), and 5 students (56%) anadvanced level.






advanced level.




intermediate (44%).

Human Resources


A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGstudents (100%) obtained below average scores


43/242




When assessing the Theme and Structurecriterion, 18 of 20 students (90%) obtained below


students have limited abilities developing the





limited abilities in comprehendingmorphosyntactic aspects of their native






(50). Findings showed that students havedeficiencies in employing discursive coherence



essay.




students made orthographic errors whenwriting an essay.





In the listening comprehension criterion, 12 of 15students (80%) obtained scores greater than the

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGcut point (106 low intermediate) Of these


44/242




advanced level.




students, one showed a competency level of high


advanced level.

In the reading comprehension criterion, 3 of 15students (20%) obtained scores greater than thecut point (125 low intermediate). Of these


intermediate (20%).

Marketing


students (88%) obtained below average scores(50). These results showed that students have















A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGWhen assessing the lexical competency criterion 12


45/242





coherence and cohesion and poor lexical skillsrequired when writing an essay.




students made some orthographic errors when

writing an essay.

The ELASH II, English administered by the CEEB totest the effected communication skills in English, was


Findings were:




students, 5 showed a competency level of highintermediate (24%), and 13 students (62%) an

advanced level.





high intermediate (43%), and 5 students (24%) an

advanced level.





advanced level.

Business Administration General Program

A



46/242


students (94%) obtained scores below the average


limited abilities in written skills.













When assessing the lexical competency criterion, 20of 54 students (37%) obtained below average





essay.


criterion, 51 of 54 students (94%) obtained belowaverage scores (50). Findings showed that


writing an essay.




Findings were:

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGIn the listening comprehension criterion, 22 of 29


47/242

g p ,




intermediate (34%), and 12 students (38%) anadvanced level.





high intermediate (31%), and 4 students (14%) an

advanced level.



students, 9 showed a competency level of highintermediate (31%), and one student (3%) an

advanced level.

Computer Information System







average scores (50). These results showed thatstudents have limited abilities in developing the






morphosyntactic aspects of their nativelanguage, such as understanding the

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGequivalence of the spoken and written language


48/242



16 students (44%) obtained below average scores(50). Findings showed that students have some




essay.

When assessing the Correct Grammar usage


average scores (50). Findings showed thatstudents made orthographic errors when

writing an essay.










advanced level.


of 10 students (60%) obtained scores greater thanthe cut point (125 low intermediate). Of these



advanced level.



A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGintermediate (30%), and one student (10%) an


49/242

advanced level.

2009-2010


an oral presentation in the Introduction to Marketing

course (MERC 3115), findings revealed that 60% of

the students obtained 70% or more in the rubric used.

Thus, the expected outcome that 70% or more of

the students would communicate effectively was

not met.

2009-2010

The rubric was revised. The ICCAC developed and

administrated workshops to help students develop the skill.The program will create an instructional module that students

can consult at any time.

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGCollege of Humanities


50/242

Academic Programs Findings Transforming Actions

Hispanic Studies 2008-2009

In a test, offered in August 2008 and developed by theCEEB to evaluate the writing skills of the incoming

class. Findings were:

When assessing the essay as a whole, 2 of 3 students

(67%) obtained below average scores (50). These

results showed one student has limited abilities

in writing skills.



scores (50). These results showed that the two

students assessed have difficulties in developing

the topic and the structure of an essay.



(50). These results showed that the one studentassessed does not have the necessary abilities in

comprehending the morphosyntactic aspects of

its native language, such as understanding the





(50). Findings showed that the three students

assessed have the necessary abilities in

employing discursive coherence and cohesion

and lexical skills, which are elements required

when writing an essay.



average scores (50). Findings showed that thethree students assessed do not make

2008-2009

All incoming students that obtained low scores on the writingtest administered by the CEEB were advised through their







A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGorthographic errors when writing an essay.


51/242



administered to the incoming class in August 2008.Findings were:




students, one showed a competency level of high


advanced level.


the students assessed did not obtain a score greater



cut point (125 low intermediate). This student

achieved a higher level competency on thiscriterion.

2009-2010

When assessing effective communication skills using

a rubric, 86% of the students (n=14) obtained an

average score of 70% more. Thus, the expected


score of 70% or more on the rubric was met.

2009-2010

Increase the number of students assessed.

Advise students that showed some limitations in their writing

skills to attend CDLCs workshops.

Promote that faculty members offer more essay type exams,

monographs, critical reviews, among others.

Consider the possibility of developing writing skills workshops

of specific topics.

Consider the possibility of creating a Journal in which

undergraduate students from the program could publish theirpapers.

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGComparative Literature 2008-2009 2008-2009


52/242




When assessing the essay as a whole, 7 of 7 students

(100%) obtained below average scores (50).

These results showed that students have limited

abilities in writing skills.



scores (50). These results showed that studentshave limited abilities in developing the topic

and the structure of an essay.



(50). These results showed that two students


morphosyntactic aspects of their nativelanguage, such as understanding the




7 students (0%) obtained below average scores(50). Findings showed the students assessed do

not have deficiencies in employing discursive

coherence and cohesion, as well as poor lexicalskills required when writing an essay.



average scores (50). Findings showed that three


writing an essay.




Academic Advisor about the need to strengthen theircommunication skills in the language where deficiencies were





A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDENTLEARNINGtest the effected communication skills in English, was

administered to the incoming class in August 2008


53/242


Findings were:






advanced level.



the cut point (125 low intermediate). Of thesestudents, 0 showed a competency level of high


advanced level.



students, one showed a competency level of highintermediate (50%), and one student (50%) anadvanced level.

2009-2010

In a rubric used to assess effective communication

skills, only 4 students showed a competency level

greater than 80% in each one of the criteria assessed.

Two students showed a competency level of 50% and

66%. The rest of the 7 students obtained an average

score of 44% in this domain. The arithmetic mean (a

maximum score of 18 and a minimum score of 6

points, was 9.62 (53.4%). Thus, the expected


score of 70% or more on the rubric was not met.

When the data was analyzed, findings revealed that

2009-2010

Make sure through the Academic Advisor, the Department

Secretary, and the professor of the course that the students have

fulfilled the pre-requisite and that they have approved it

preferably with grade A or B before enrolling in this course,and therefore have the necessary formation to continue and

approve the course satisfactorily.

Emphasize the pre-requisites and the necessary explanations in

the description of the course used for enrollment purposes.

Begin introducing theory and literary criticism readings in

elementary level courses.

A

OFFICEOFEVALUATIONOFSTUDEN

Documents

Appendix 56 Table of Assessment Findings and Transforming Actions by Colleges and Academic Programs 08 10