AXLE Review Committee, 2009-2010 General findings from ......AXLE Review Committee, 2009-2010 General findings from meetings with departments • Almost all A&S faculty members are

AXLE Review Committee, 2009-2010 General findings from meetings with departments

• Almost all A&S faculty members are pleased with the AXLE curriculum and compare it favorably to the CPLE curriculum. Faculty members presented no major objections to AXLE. Minor revisions to AXLE will make it an even stronger curriculum, and the recommendations of the AXLE Review Committee toward this end are below. If approved, A&S committee(s) will work on implementing these recommendations next year. A few faculty members expressed theoretical differences with the underlying philosophy of AXLE, but satisfying these concerns would require an entirely different curriculum.

• AXLE is more user-friendly and more easily understood than the CPLE.

• Curricular oversight is more streamlined under AXLE than it was under the

CPLE.

• There is little support for the AXLE version of Vanderbilt Visions.

• AXLE has not significantly changed student interest in particular departments, although there are some exceptions. Since the advent of AXLE, only one department has experienced a noteworthy, unexplained drop in enrollment in its undergraduate courses (Anthropology).

General findings from the data report Caution: We have to remember that, for most of the tables, the data come from one graduating class of AXLE students. It is impossible to tell at present whether or not the first AXLE class is representative of future AXLE classes. In some cases, the most we can do is compare AXLE with the CPLE on the same question and try to ascertain if the results are favorable or problematic for AXLE. Moreover, some of the differences between the CPLE and AXLE can be better explained as indications of a trend and not as the result of a curriculum change (for example, the shifts in enrollment in foreign language courses).

• AXLE students on average take slightly more courses in order to graduate than CPLE students (39.5 vs. 38.5; from table 2ac), but this difference is not significant and might not be due to the change in curriculum.

• AXLE students on average take courses from slightly less breadth than CPLE

students (courses from 12.48 vs. 13.34 subject areas and from 12.33 vs. 13.21 departments [from tables 1aa and 1ab]), but, again, this difference is not significant and might not be due to the change in curriculum.

2

• Approximately two-thirds of students complete the AXLE requirements by the

end of the fourth semester, and approximately three-quarters of students complete them by the end of the sixth semester (from tables 10a-d).

• Students have not enrolled in 200-level courses in greater proportion than under

the CPLE (nearly identical percentages; from tables 6ea and 6eb).

• SBS (Social and Behavioral Sciences) and US (History and Culture of the United States) courses are more popular than expected, but this might be due to the way in which departments classified their courses in the AXLE distribution categories. Other AXLE distribution categories are about as popular as expected. (From the tables in the response to question 2.)

• Fewer students are taking Math courses under AXLE than under the CPLE, but

those who are taking Math courses are taking more of them. Almost all students (86%) take at least one Math course. (From the tables in the responses to questions 4 and 8.)

• About the same number of students are taking foreign language courses under

AXLE than under the CPLE, although enrollment in foreign language courses has been redistributed towards Arabic, Chinese, Italian, and Portuguese and away from German, Greek, and Spanish. Almost all students (92%) take at least one foreign language course. Only 54 students (of 683) satisfied the foreign language proficiency requirement by AP or test scores. (From the tables in the responses to questions 5, 6, and 9.)

• Under AXLE, students have satisfied the second Writing course requirement

about evenly between another 100W course and a 200W course (from table 7a).

• There appears to be enough AXLE Writing courses in total and enough 200W courses in particular (from the tables in the response to question 7).

• Student contact with tenured and tenure-track faculty members in courses varies

widely by department (from table 3b), but this is probably true independent of AXLE.

• From AXLE assessment, we learn that most students graduate with a breadth of

knowledge, as measured by AXLE distribution categories. Even when we exclude all earned grades that could count toward a student’s primary major, 95% of spring 2009 AXLE graduates would satisfy five of the six AXLE distribution categories (from table 11). This means that AXLE is fulfilling its function of having students take a breadth and range of courses outside their primary major.

• From AXLE assessment, we learn that A&S graduates are competent writers,

although there is room for improvement (from table 12).

3

AXLE Review Committee recommendations 1. Rescind from the AXLE curriculum the AXLE version of Vanderbilt Visions and its associated two credits. Rationale: There is little faculty support for the AXLE version of Vanderbilt Visions, and A&S does not have the faculty or financial resources to implement it at this time. Moreover, first-year students are busy enough as it is without another academic or quasi-academic obligation. The A&S faculty asked the AXLE Review Committee to either recommend that the AXLE version of Vanderbilt Visions be rescinded or implemented, and not delayed again. The Committee recommends its elimination. 2. A&S departments and programs must receive approval from the AXLE Implementation Committee to take a course out of AXLE (that is, to reclassify an existing course that counts toward an AXLE distribution requirement so that the course no longer counts toward a distribution requirement). It is presumed that all A&S courses count toward AXLE unless an argument can be made that an individual course should not count. There are a few exceptions, which are spelled out by the CRWG final report. Rationale: Several departments and programs have withdrawn courses from AXLE, which appears to violate the spirit, if not the law, of the AXLE curriculum. Having departments justify their withdrawal before the AXLE Implementation Committee would serve as a reasonable check on this trend. 3. A new subcategory of the MNS (Mathematics and Natural Sciences) distribution category should be established--quantitative reasoning. Students would be required to take one course from this subcategory. Details of the new subcategory would be worked out next year by an implementation committee. Rationale: Many faculty members from across the college, not just science departments, requested that students be required to take a quantitative reasoning course of some kind, whether it be a math, statistics, or perhaps even an informal or formal logic course. It is possible that a student could fulfill the AXLE curriculum requirements without ever having to take a quantitative reasoning course, yet quantitative reasoning skills are critical and valuable for our graduates to attain. AXLE Review Committee: Anna Roe (Psychology), Chair, Adam List (Chemistry), Lorraine Lopez (English), Volker Oberacker (Physics and Astronomy), Peter Rousseau (Economics), Benigno Trigo (Spanish and Portuguese), and Jonathan Bremer (ex officio).

AXLE Review questions to departments A. Summary of feedback 1. Is the AXLE curriculum user friendly and easily understood by faculty and students? YES. Overwhelmingly this was the response. In general, all departments found AXLE more friendly, flexible, understandable, intuitive than CPLE. Very few complaints about AXLE in general. 2. Is the degree of faculty and administrative oversight over curricular matters more streamlined with AXLE than with the CPLE curriculum? YES. Overwhelmingly this was the response. 3. General feedback: Do department members have suggestions, concerns, or criticisms about the AXLE curriculum? --Add Math/Stats/Quantitative Reasoning: Several departments (science departments, art department, philosophy department) stated that stats and/or math should be a requirement. It was a mistake not to make this part of AXLE. The main point is to encourage logical thinking, ability to make good arguments, justified conclusions. --Some like the increased breadth in AXLE as compared to CPLE. However, some departments complained that requirements fail to encourage students to focus, to acquire depth of knowledge in a particular subject area. Current students want to be pre-professional and also want to double/triple major, leading to lack of intellectual depth, too broad an education, not enough focus. --Some complain that we need stronger foreign language requirement. --Not enough perspectives courses. Perspectives category not well understood/explained. --Takes an unreasonable amount of time to get courses reclassified. --Note: most finish AXLE requirements during junior year. No difficulty in fulfulling requirements. --English perceives it is bearing the brunt of the writing requirements. Would like more departments to offer W courses. --The registration system does not let students know which courses count in which categories, this would be helpful. The A&S Registrar’s Office is working on a solution to this problem.

2

4. According to your perceptions, has AXLE changed student interest in their particular department? For good or for ill? NO. In general, no perception of significant change in enrollment, although a few exceptions (see History, Theatre). Only Anthropology Dept indicated significant shift in enrollment—unexplained. 5. If there is time, feedback on Vanderbilt Visions Many negative sentiments about Vanderbilt Visions. Suggestions are to let instructors do as they please with respect to content and format. Shorten the course. Not much interest in bringing former ‘intellectual’ Visions back. B. Departments Interviewed Anthropology Art Biology Chemistry Classical Studies Communication Studies Earth & Environment Sciences Economics English French & Italian Germanic & Slavic Languages History Math Philosophy Physics & Astronomy Political Science Psychology Religion Sociology Spanish & Portuguese Theatre Anthropology (Bremer) 1. Is the AXLE curriculum user friendly and easily understood by faculty and students? **Yes.

3

2. Is the degree of faculty and administrative oversight over curricular matters more streamlined with AXLE than with the CPLE curriculum? **Yes. 3. General feedback: Do department members have suggestions, concerns, or criticisms about the AXLE curriculum? **Too hard to recategorize courses into another AXLE distribution category; in this respect AXLE is not user-friendly. 4. According to your perceptions, has AXLE changed student interest in their particular department? For good or for ill? **For ill. They said that it is hard to explain the drop in enrollment in Anthropology introductory courses without taking into consideration the start of the AXLE curriculum. Art (Rousseau, Roe) Positive view of AXLE, more flexible In 80s, 90s no major/minor Minor rejected then accepted Previously art did not count, under CPLE Too much double major/minor: art secondary Art requirements pushed to later years Breadth over depth Should have more requirements Art 180: does not count for art history May restrict to majors only No perspectives courses Stats/math should be requirement Phi Beta Kappa School new spaper, current events awardees Biology (Roe, List) Q1: Yes. One comment was that the online audit was very helpful for both student

and faculty understanding of AXLE status. Q2: Yes. However, there was grumbling that the question was “loaded.”

4

Q3: There was a concern about the loss of Science & the World category. There was comment from one instructor that students complained that course was “too hard for Perspectives.” This instructor was concerned about the rigor of Perspective courses across campus. Had the strong impression that students felt like they were entitled to an easy course.

The department liked the freshman writing seminars. However, there was interest in more flexibility for upper-level writing. Specifically, they would like to incorporate their two-semester research sequence into 200-level writing course. They do accomplish many of the same tasks as a 200W course, except that it is done over a two-semester time frame in order for the student to be able to write up his or her research progress.

Q4: The department felt that AXLE had little or no impact on the BSCI department and its majors.

Chemistry (Roe, Oberacker) 1) students are much less confused about AXLE than CPLE. Freshmen advising is definitely easier. Chemistry majors also find AXLE easier than CPLE. Online transcripts of advisees make a positive difference. 2) Is faculty and admin. oversight more streamlined? Yes! 3) General feedback: * chemistry dept. complains that science and math courses have been devalued in the AXLE curriculum, as compared to CPLE. * most chemistry students finish AXLE requirements during their junior year. * impact on chemistry majors: under AXLE, they can't use AP credit, therefore they have to take 10 more courses than under CPLE (more social science and humanities courses than before); chem. dept. is divided whether this is good or bad. * With AXLE, it is harder to double-major as compared to CPLE. * Chem. department observes that there is a "writing requirement", but given the importance of math and natural sciences in today's world, there should also be a "math/quantitative reasoning" requirement! * Chemistry dept. offers 1 "Perspectives" course * "Vanderbilt Visions": feelings are mixed, but there is consensus that program has improved. One faculty member recommended to give

5

this course one credit hour, this way it would be taken more seriously by students and faculty From Joel Tellinghusen: I think I mean both, Anna, though I have not gone so far as to sketch out anything resembling an organized course! In my lab instruction, I am continually disappointed to see students trying to "learn" experiments procedurally instead of conceptually, and I think such approaches follow from their limited quantitative understandings of their world. And these are upper level chem majors! (I'm sure Ken says similar.) The experiments in question are often quite simple conceptually, so that a reasonable conceptual understanding leads straightforwardly to a procedural one; but not the reverse. Beyond the classroom, I am similarly disappointed to see how little effort and ability public citizens display in trying to understand, say, potential ulterior motives on the two sides (which may as well be called science and anti-science) of the global warming issue. And the public reaction to the recent reports on mamography recommendations was totally devoid of any real appreciation of statistics ... as happens with just about every new health scare -- salmonella on tomatoes, or whatever. Or take ridiculous numbers in printed reports. I copy below a letter I sent to the Tennessean commenting on a report they published on Halloween. (In this case, it happens that at least one other reader caught it, as they published his letter!) In short, the room for useful learning here is, I would argue, much greater than that to be achieved from freshman writing courses! Joel [sent to the Tennessean] Candy gives dentists a fright. Your interesting feature about halloween candy and teeth in last Saturday's Local section unfortunately contains one of those numbers that impresses without at all informing the reader. I refer to the statement that "children around the world eat more than 2 trillion tons of sugar every year ... " To make such statements more informative, one should convert them to per capita values; and most readers can probably visualize a time scale like a day or a week better than a year. If we take the number of children in the world to be about 2 billion, we find that the per capita consumption is 1000 tons per year. That translates into around 3 tons per day!

6

Such consumption levels should give all of us a fright! (From several sources, the average consumption level in the U. S. is actually several pounds a week -- still plenty scary!). Anna Wang Roe wrote: > Hi Joel, > I liked your comment about the need for training in quantitative > reasoning. Do you mean mathematical reasoning, being able to support > what you say with numbers? or simply the ability to make a cogent, > logical argument? Or both? > Anna > From Prasad Polavarapu: The questions that your committee members posed at the Chemistry faculty meeting this afternoon will probably yield skewed results. Most faculty members in Chemistry (and other departments as well) may not be familiar enough with AXLE vs CPLE issues, and VISIONS program, to provide informed answers, so the restricted response you received, if any, may not represent the correct consensus. You may get a better and reliable picture about AXLE and VISIONS if you address your questions specifically to (1). undergraduate students, (b). directors of undergraduate programs, (c). faculty who are involved in freshman advising; and (d). Faculty who have been serving as VUceptors. Classical Studies (Bremer) 1. Is the AXLE curriculum user friendly and easily understood by faculty and students? **Yes.** 2. Is the degree of faculty and administrative oversight over curricular matters more streamlined with AXLE than with the CPLE curriculum? **Yes.** 3. General feedback: Do department members have suggestions, concerns, or criticisms about the AXLE curriculum? **AXLE distribution categories should be better defined; clearer demarcation between categories.**

7

**Sometimes it is hard to find a good P course for students.** **Compared with peer universities, foreign language requirement is inadequate.** 4. According to your perceptions, has AXLE changed student interest in their particular department? For good or for ill? **About the same. Enrollments in most courses are steady, except for foreign language courses, which have declined.** Communications Studies (Sloop, List) Adam List and I met with the Communication Studies department today: In general, the department finds AXLE easy to understand and thinks the students do as well. They are especially appreciative of the On the Road to Axle booklet. They think it is easy to fulfill the requirements and were unaware of problems with changing the numbers. I (Sloop) initially became involved in the AXLE Implementation Committee in order to help implement the Oral Communications option for the AXLE writing requirement. I believe that CMST 100 (Fundamentals of Public Speaking) should count toward the “O” requirement, but the CMST department as a whole does not favor this. Earth & Environmental Sciences (Trigo) Question 1: The general feeling of the department was that AXLE is easier for both students and faculty. Comments such as "Way easier", "it was a nightmare before "students are far less hateful," "Difference is night and day" were common. The comments were particularly in praise of AXLE's flexibility. Both students and faculty appreciate the greater flexibility that makes the courses more relaxed and less rigid. They also appreciated the smaller sizes of the freshman seminar, smaller courses are more fun to teach, they said. Question 2: Oversight and bookkeeping is easier. Some faculty chose not to become knowledgeable about CPLE before because it was so complicated. They did not feel the same way about AXLE. Question 3: A number of issues were raised here.

8

First, there was a concern made regarding the effect on the science requirement which they found to be smaller under AXLE. Since the requirements of Natural Science and Math Requirement under CPLE were substituted by requirements that seemed more like Science Studies to them. However, there was no consensus about this, and in fact some faculty expressed the feeling that the change in the requirement had made their students and faculty happier in class. Second, there was a more generalized concern over the disappearance of cross-listing. Some speculated that this change was related to the change in curriculum. I did not know. They thought that perhaps it had something to do with the attempt to make bookkeeping friendlier, but that it had an adverse impact on the mission to make the curriculum more meaningful to students. Some suggested that the disappearance of cross-listing actually went against AXLE's spirit of greater flexibility. Third, along these lines, interest was expressed in some means of bringing meaning, perhaps through advising, perhaps through a capstone experience, to the curriculum. Connecting the dots together with the students as it were. It sounded like they were saying that flexibility required a structure that would give it more balance, either at the beginning or at the end. Question 4: Enrollment has seen a modest decline, however the students are now happier. There is no evidence, however, to determine with any certainty whether the interest has changed for good or for ill, suggesting that perhaps it was too early to tell. They did mention that the interest in earth sciences in the larger culture has coincided with a change in the curriculum that has made for more interested students and interesting classes. The curriculum change has coincided favorably with this change in the larger culture. Economics (Rousseau) I did not have a meeting with the full department, but rather with the faculty committee on undergraduate studies and four undergraduate who are also on that committee. The general impression among faculty is that advising is vastly easier under AXLE as opposed to CPLE. They also seemed to like the idea that markets now had a stronger influence on class enrollments in the college rather than rules. Among economists this view might be expected. The more interesting comments came from the undergraduates. They expressed concerns that AXLE credit could not be earned by studying abroad unless a course had a rather precise equivalent on the books at Vanderbilt. I don’t know how prevalent this concern is among the larger population of undergraduates. They also noted that the registration system does not let students know which courses count in which categories, and that this would be helpful. Some mentioned that 13 required courses was too many, and that AXLE was too restrictive (they obviously were not around in the days of the CPLE!). There was very little support among faculty or students for a second-year orientation program (I was a bit sorry that I had brought the question up). The general feeling was that second-year students have enough to do without yet another required orientation.

9

English (Bremer, List, Lopez) 1. Is the AXLE curriculum user friendly and easily understood by faculty and students? **Yes. 2. Is the degree of faculty and administrative oversight over curricular matters more streamlined with AXLE than with the CPLE curriculum? **Yes. 3. General feedback: Do department members have suggestions, concerns, or criticisms about the AXLE curriculum? **Implementation of AXLE is getting better. Dean Sloop is aware of the problems and is doing a good job trying to fix them. **English department is bearing the burden of teaching W courses. There is no incentive to teach a W course, and there is no disincentive not to teach a W course. W courses require more work. Every department should teach W courses or at least one W course. **Students don't understand the Perspectives category. **The degree audit is hard to read. The distinction between "and" and "or" is often unclear. Decimal points have different meanings throughout the degree audit. The significance of the different tabs is unclear. 4. According to your perceptions, has AXLE changed student interest in their particular department? For good or for ill? **No effect either way. Generally pleased by effects of AXLE. French (Trigo) 1. Question 1: AXLE was found to be easier to understand than CPLE. However, there were some concerns and questions regarding the Language requirement of AXLE, which was not well understood. There were questions regarding what counted towards the international requirement, especially when a student went enrolled in an overseas program. There was some confusion about whether or not students could fulfill the language requirement with courses from two different languages. It was pointed out that the language requirement was helpful in increasing the proficiency of students not predisposed to taking languages. There were questions regarding the International component and its comparison to other requirements of the committee.

10

2. Question 2: The new advising system was considered to be an improvement, more clear cut. The Writing component was praised as working quite well. 3. Question 3: A number of issues were raised here. The first year experience was said to be working well, but it was suggested that the various houses of the common might want to consider taking on prescribed identities in the tradition of the colleges experience. Also a couple of faculty members expressed their concern with the flexibility and amount of choice in the AXLE curriculum and the lack of a common reading experience that all students could draw from and faculty could presuppose. It was pointed out that students with less privileged backgrounds are lacking a background in readings that sets them apart and structurally impairs their experience in the university classroom. Ultimately, there was some desire expressed for a “25 Great Books” core curriculum to be shared by all students. 4. Question 4: No difference was found here. German (Sloop) I met with them this morning (alone) and, to be frank, it was a short conversation. The department consensus is that AXLE is very easy to use (once they got adjusted to it), that the process is very streamlined (they don’t feel as if everything is overseen), and they see very little difference in their department enrollments and student interest. The only suggestion they had was the students should be forced to take two semesters of a foreign language. That is, no one should be able to place out of the foreign language requirement. History (List, Rousseau) Department: History Date: 12/14/09 Other AXLE review members attending: Peter Rousseau Q1: Yes. AXLE is OK. There is a disclaimer – While the faculty agree that AXLE is easily

understood and user friendly they did not want this affirmation to be confused with a philosophical support for the AXLE curriculum. Specifically there are concerns about a lack of depth in the curriculum.

Q2: Yes. No issues administrative oversight. Q3: There was some disagreement with AXLE in general (see Q1). One of the specific issues

mentioned was that students did not understand what Perspectives means. Faculty felt there were not enough courses in all AXLE categories.

11

There was concern with fact that students were completing much of the AXLE requirements within the major courses. This was allowing for more double and triple majors which some felt was not necessarily a good thing.

Q4: The department has seen changes in the enrollment levels of their courses. Courses in History linked to language have seen the most dramatic drops (e.g. intro course in Latin-American history has seen significant drop). US History 2-course sequence replaced with 4 separate courses. While class enrollment has dropped, the students left in the classes were more motivated. Several faculty commented that this drop in intro enrollment was a good thing. Faculty had a sense that students in the old intro courses were CPLE prisoners – because of the fewer course choices. Therefore there was a sense in students that CPLE courses had to be “easy.” Now students have had more choice they seem empowered in class. History has added upper-level seminar courses. They are seeing more double and triple majors. There was a feeling that students are deciding later upon a major.

Math (List, Oberacker) 1) AXLE is much more user friendly than CPLE 2) Is faculty and admin. oversight more streamlined? Yes! 3) General feedback: a) the "Perspectives" section contains lots of courses that are not currently being offered. b) suggestion regarding "Vanderbilt Visions": the topic of "civility" should be an issue to be discussed 4) AXLE impact on math department: in general, no big changes. The enrollment in upper-level courses is increasing (math

dept. likes this trend). Philosophy (Roe, Rousseau) Overall goods: Advising burden diminshed Clearer to students More intuitive Overall bads: Less advising, less time in Gen Ed requirement Increasing narrowness, less background in 19th century history Too many try double/triple majors

12

About 80 majors: half are double majors (often Philos & Econ), increase from 60-65 Pre-med, pre-business CPLE-to-AXLE humanity & evolution enrollment decline, humanities & science 100 decline To 30 Interface b/w disciplines Hard to categorize courses Math & language requirement decline is bad 2 yrs to reclassify course unreasonable Need Math requirement: general logic lacking Freshman class language poorer even though scores are higher Writing requirement needs work Physics (Bremer, Oberacker) * AXLE is more user friendly than the old CPLE, advisers like it much better * there is more breadth in AXLE as compared to CPLE (more courses need to be taken at VU, cannot be opted out with AP credit) * our faculty likes the fact that departments (rather than the whole A&S faculty) decide what categories to put courses in; e.g. there were lots of problems with "Science and the World" courses under the old CPLE. * AXLE had no effect on the number of majors in our department. However, attendance has gone down in the physics introductory courses for non-science majors (Phys-105 and Phys-110). In the introductory astronomy course, the number of students taking the lectures is about the same, but there are fewer students in the corresponding "lab" (telescope observations). Good news: the number of students taking the physics intro course for science majors (Phys-116) are up. * concern about writing requirement: according to DUS David Weintraub, the biggest snag in advising is confusion over required 100-level writing requirement (apparently cannot be fulfilled by taking 200-level W course). * "VU Visions": students have a tough transition between first year (well taken care of by faculty advisers) and second year (little oversight). Suggestion by DUS David Weintraub to go back to original intent of VU Visions (presentations by faculty describing how a research university works, intellectual depth, ...).

13

Weintraub proposal is to shift VU Visions into sophomore year, perhaps one semester only, group students into natural science, humanities, and social science. Critical issue is whether we have enough faculty and upper-level students to implement this.

Political Science (Rousseau) I do not have much in the way of notes from the Political Science meeting. Since most of the faculty at the meeting arrived at Vanderbilt after AXLE, they really had no basis to compare with CPLE. Professor Ray, who of course has been around and is the Director of Undergraduate Studies, noted that enrollments in their 100 level courses seem to have fallen a bit since AXLE. Our part of the meeting lasted about 10 minutes. Psychology (Roe) Much better than CPLE, no complaints about it, like it, like the online accounting Contact hours are just right. Contact hours are more substantive, not wasted on silly credit counting. Distribution of classes taken: perception is that it is either more distributed or no obvious change in distribution Asking approval for a new writing seminar is an overly rigorous procedure, needs too much lead time, esp when it comes to new faculty hires 90 hr rule has got to go, discourages students from taking courses in other schools, e.g. comp sci courses No one likes (with the exception of JoAnne Bachorowski who was not at the meeting) Vanderbilt Visions. Overall advice: To make Visions work, do not follow the rules and organize some interesting activities, shorten the total time because students get tired of it NO on whether to have an academic 1 hr credit ‘visions’ course Religious Studies (List, Sloop) Department: Religious Studies Other AXLE review members attending: John Sloop

Q1: Yes. AXLE is much better than CPLE. Comments – like the flexibility of designating categories. However, this was awkward at first in distinguishing between categories (which best fits a course) and knowing in advance what categories would have been most helpful to students.

Q2: Yes. Much easier than CPLE.

14

Q3: Difficult to move categories for a course. Different instructors may have different emphases and so the best AXLE category for a course can change over time. [Dean Sloop commented that a course needs to stay in an AXLE category as long as that category is relevant to the course and the reasons for this.]

Additionally, the department felt that while the emphasis on writing was good, there was not enough AXLE emphasis on communication. Several faculty commented that they would like to see more oral communications options in different departments because oral communication an essential part their classes and of what they do.

Q4: Enrollments in the former CPLE courses have dropped. However, overall, enrollment is up in the department. Majors in the department have increased since AXLE. Additionally, it was commented that there is a better spread of enrollment in 200-level courses and fewer 100-level courses with very large enrollments, which was viewed as a positive development.

Sociology (Bremer) 1. Is the AXLE curriculum user friendly and easily understood by faculty and students? **Yes, but not as much as it could be (no elaboration given). A faculty member suggested that one way to answer this question would be to compare the number of student petitions under AXLE with the number of petitions under CPLE.** 2. Is the degree of faculty and administrative oversight over curricular matters more streamlined with AXLE than with the CPLE curriculum? **Yes.** 3. General feedback: Do department members have suggestions, concerns, or criticisms about the AXLE curriculum? **Students don't know where to look to find out the AXLE category of a course. Perhaps the Schedule of Courses should include the distribution categories of courses.** **The online degree audit works well.** 4. According to your perceptions, has AXLE changed student interest in their particular department? For good or for ill? **Both. Like the CPLE, some students take a Sociology course just to satisfy a curricular requirement, and these students often change the tone of the course. Yet, the curricular requirement brings in students to Sociology courses that wouldn't otherwise take them.**

15

Spanish (Trigo, Oberacker) 1. Regarding the ease of the curriculum. There was consensus this was the case. Both faculty and students were said to be happier with the flexibility afforded by AXLE. 2. Also regarding the ease of the curriculum. Less paperwork and reviews were appreciated by the faculty. 3. Regarding shortcomings. Writing was singled out as a continuing problem. Desire for emphasis on the mechanics of writing was expressed. So was a way to systematize the way writing is taught or supervised at the Writing Center. 4. Regarding the impact of AXLE on the major or on the number of students in the department, for the most part the faculty saw no great difference. Theatre (Sloop) 1. For the most part, the faculty think students and faculty find AXLE easier to understand and fulfill. There is some confusing regarding Perspectives because there are so many courses that could count as perspectives and so few that actually do. 2. The department agreed that the process to have courses approved was streamlined and "less political." 3. The original committee had wanted CMST100 to count as the "O" component of AXLE, and the department considers the current system (where only a few 200 level CMST courses count as "O"s to be "a joke." They would like to see an emphasis on oral communication. THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THE ORAL COMPONENT FOR THE AXLE CURRICULUM WAS UNECESSARILY WATERED DOWN FROM WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY. WHEN PROMPTED THE FACULTY STATED THAT THE NEW CURRICULUM WAS NOT IMPROVING THE ABILITIES OF OUR STUDENTS TO WRITE. 4. They have seen a drop in enrollments and majors since AXLE. They attribute this to the fact that THTR 100 counted in CPLE and hence drew twice as many students as it now does. With more students, they had better chance of finding students who were interested in majoring in Theatre. THEY POINTED OUT THAT STUDENTS DO NOT COME TO VANDERBILT TO BE THEATRE MAJORS AND THE DEPARTMENT SEEMED TO DEPEND ON THE INTRODUCTORY COURSE TO SPARK INTEREST IN THE INCOMING STUDENTS

1

AXLE Review Committee, 2009‐2010 Data compiled and presented by the A&S Registrar’s Office

Data Sources

Population: AXLE: 720 students consisting of spring 2009 graduates who began at Vanderbilt in 05F (05U for athletes) CPLE: 779 students consisting of spring 2004 graduates. Exclusions:

• Excluded 2 students whose social security number changed, which would make them under hours.

• Excluded 20 students with AXLE category variances and 5 students who had Pass/Fail courses satisfy an AXLE requirement.

• Excluded 9 AXLE students who started before 05F and thus had Vanderbilt Grades prior to 05.

• Removed 4 AXLE Old‐Students‐Returning (OSR) since they would have begun under CPLE.

Grades: All grades, both at Vanderbilt and other school and universities, were collected for the population.

• Some transfer grades were given invalid course equivalencies. These don’t get AXLE credit.

• Some students have multiple transfer grades for the SAME course. For special topics, that is allowed, but the section number is always 00, so they appear as duplicates.

AXLE Codes: For assigning AXLE codes to grades, the following variant of the Curriculum Database method is used:

From the Curriculum record, a query of every possible offering every semester 00F‐present is created. The AXLE Grades are split into two groups, 115F FYWS and regular courses. Regular courses are matched by CourseID and Term Offered, except that if the term offered of the grade is before 05F, it is overridden to 05F. For 115F‐FYWS, there is no term override, since

2

115F’s prior to 05F were not in AXLE and had different section numbers (cannot be matched). 115F grades are matched by CourseID, Term Offered, and Section. Thus, for all grades of the AXLE Population, the approved AXLE code is assigned. All credits are the actual credits for the course, not the possibly modified credits the student received due to overlap. Enrollment: Enrollment numbers can be misleading, since some students drop late, drop retroactively, or are taking the course for repeat credit. Therefore, for calculating what students have taken (courses/subjects/departments/AXLE codes) and the number of students taking (courses/subjects/departments/AXLE codes), the focus is on the grades students have earned. This excludes courses students have dropped, courses students have withdrawn from, and courses that students took for repeat credit. In the case of repeat credit, only the final grade is counted.

Subject Areas and Departments: For the purpose of this project, Music Literature (MUSL) is considered an Arts and Science subject, since its courses count in AXLE. Subject Areas that changed only their Rubric and Number Subject areas that changed code, but not their identity, are shown with their current code. Courses taught under their previous codes are included as if taught under their current code. Subject and Department Mergers and Separations Mergers and separations cause comparison of old and new subject areas and departments to be meaningless. Therefore, the following adjustments were made in order that the data would have meaning.

Biological Sciences (MBIO, BIOL, BSCI) – all are considered Biological Sciences (BSCI) in both subject and Department for this report. The merger is retroactive. In “number of subject” calculations, these are considered one subject, since this happened early in the CPLE semesters considered. Hence, this has no effect on calculations involving only AXLE students, since they started after this change.

Fine Arts, History of Art, Art History, Art and Art History, Art Studio (FA, AHST, ARTS, HART) – all are considered Fine Arts (FA) in both subject and department. The separation of these subjects and departments is undone, since courses moved among the subject codes. For example, AHST was used by both departments at one point, and

3

by only one at another. In “number of subject” calculations, these are considered one subject. This affects all calculations, since the rearranging of these subjects spans from the middle of our CPLE students’ semesters to the middle of our AXLE students’ semesters.

Business Administration, Managerial Studies, Financial Economics (BA, FNEC, MGRL) ‐ all are considered Managerial Studies (MGRL) in both subject and department. The split of BA into FNEC and MGRL is imprecise. Also, all are in the same Department (Program) now. In “number of subject” calculations, these are considered one subject, except for when counting for AXLE Students alone (not comparing with CPLE).

If detail about any of these three groups is needed, such as splitting Art and History of Art, this can be done, but it would require determining which courses are considered which department through different semesters and different subject classifications. This would take substantial time.

4

1. What has been the distribution of courses that students have taken? ‐‐Registrar: by department? By subject area? By AXLE distribution category? To avoid inflated numbers due to the changes in subject and the merger and splitting of subjects and departments, this question was answered in two different ways.

1a. Comparing AXLE with CPLE: Grades earned by both the AXLE population and the CPLE population are calculated per subjects and departments as outlined above for comparing the populations. This allows for meaningful and accurate comparison between the two for number of departments and number of subjects. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit, or post‐matriculation.

AXLE Review ‐ 1aa Subjects Average

Degree

AVG # Subjects per AVG Student

AVG # Courses per Subject per AVG Student

AVG Min #Courses in a Subj per AVG

Student

AVG Max #Courses in a Subject per AVG Student

Min AVG Max

#Courses in a Subject

Max AVG Max

#Courses in a Subject

AXLE 12.48 3.13 1.01 11.28 3.00 21.00CPLE 13.34 2.87 1.00 11.32 3.00 26.00

AXLE Review ‐ 1ab Dept Average

Degree AVG # Dept per AVG Student

AVG # Courses per Dept per AVG

Student

AVG Min #Courses in a Dept per AVG

Student

AVG Max #Courses in a Dept per AVG

Student

Min AVG Max

#Courses in a Dept

Max AVG Max

#Courses in a Dept

AXLE 12.33 3.17 1.01 11.37 3.00 24.00CPLE 13.21 2.90 1.00 11.39 3.00 26.00

5

1b. Looking at AXLE only: Grades earned only by the AXLE population were analyzed by subject, department, and AXLE category. Subject and Department are calculated per above for AXLE only calculations. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit, or post‐matriculation.

AXLE Review ‐ 1ba Subjects Average AVG # Subj per AVG Student

AVG # Courses per Subject per AVG Student

AVG Min #Courses in a Subj per AVG Student

AVG Max #Courses in a Subject per AVG Student

Min AVG Max #Courses in a

Subject

Max AVG Max #Courses in a

Subject 12.74 3.07 1.01 11.27 3.00 21.00

AXLE Review ‐ 1bb Dept Average

AvgOfAVG # Dept per Student

AVG # Courses per Dept per AVG Student

AVG Min #Courses in a Dept per AVG

Student

AVG Max #Courses in a Dept per AVG

Student

Min AVG Max #Courses in a

Dept

Max AVG Max #Courses in a

Dept

12.33 3.17 1.01 11.37 3.00 24.00

AXLE Review ‐ 1bc AXLE Courses per Code Degree AVG Per Code AVG Min in a Code per AVG Student AVG Max in a Code per AVG StudentAXLE 5.05 1.00 23.00

6

2. Has the balance of courses taken by students across the various AXLE distribution categories been reasonable? ‐‐Registrar: Is it possible to tally the courses taken by AXLE distribution category? Individual distribution and population distribution? In order for this to be different from the AXLE portion of 5b, this was answered by analyzing only grades for courses that were classified in an AXLE category and taken by the AXLE population. This does not limit to the number courses required in each of AXLE category. All students must have 7 departments, and that analysis was covered by AXLE Breadth of Knowledge. Here, the analysis is to see the number of subjects with AXLE designations, and how often they are taken. This is done in three parts:

2a. With the AXLE Population, the distribution of courses by subject and department that were designated as being able to be counted in one of the six AXLE Categories. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit, or post‐matriculation.

AXLE Review ‐ 2aa AXLE Grade Totals Population Total AXLE Grades Earned HCA Total INT Total MNS Total P Total SBS Total US Total

21835 4593 3338 4810 1428 5916 1750

AXLE Review ‐ 2ab AXLE Grades Assigned Avg Student Total AXLE Grades per AVG Student

AvgOfHCA Count

AvgOfINT Count

AvgOfMNS Count

AvgOfP Count

AvgOfSBS Count

AvgOfUS Count

30.33 6.38 4.64 6.68 1.98 8.22 2.43

AXLE Review ‐ 2ac AVG Course Count per Student per Degree

Degree AVG #Courses Per Student AXLE 39.49CPLE 38.52

7

2b. The taking of AXLE courses – From 05F to 09S the grades of all A&S students (including those who were still on CPLE) are broken down by AXLE category. This is better for comparison with 6c. But note: we cannot exclude students who were on CPLE when they took the course, since we are looking at ALL A&S grades. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit, or post‐matriculation.

AXLE Review ‐ 2ba AXLE Grades Assigned All Grades

Total AXLE Grades Earned HCA Total INT Total MNS Total P Total SBS Total US Total

111659 22600 16056 25168 8276 29793 9766

AXLE Review ‐ 2bb AXLE Grades Assigned Percent HCA Percent INT Percent MNS Percent P Percent SBS Percent US Percent

20.24% 14.38% 22.54% 7.41% 26.68% 8.75%

2c. The availability of AXLE courses – from 05F to 09S the total of all enrollment limits for all courses in AXLE by AXLE category.

AXLE Review ‐ 2ca Term Enrollment AXLE Totals

Total AXLE Seats HCA Seats INT Seats MNS Seats P Seats SBS Seats US Seats

200662 38616 26791 57944 12868 46119 18324

AXLE Review ‐ 2cb Term Enrollment Percent HCA Seats Percent

INT Seats Percent

MNS Seats Percent

P Seats Percent

SBS Seats Percent

US Seats Percent

19.24% 13.35% 28.88% 6.41% 22.98% 9.13% MNS Course enrollment limits are much higher than A&S needs, because of the needs of the School of Engineering. Thus, other schools can affect the limits we must provide.

8

3. How many contact hours do students get with tenure‐track faculty in AXLE courses? ‐‐Registrar: Amount of contact hours by tt faculty in comparison with ntt faculty.

Data on faculty tenure‐track appointments was applied to courses from 05S to 09S. If an instructor of a course did not have an appointment in the data provided to us, then they were NTT. Faculty data from other schools was also included, since some faculty members from other schools teach A&S courses and Music Literature courses count toward AXLE. As a result, we found that for the AXLE population, of their credits earned at Vanderbilt in courses that counted in an AXLE category, 47% of those credits was with Tenure or Tenure Track professors. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit, or post‐matriculation.

AXLE Review – 3a TT‐NTT Results AXLE Population AVG NTT Credits per

AVG Student AVG TT Credits per AVG

Student AVG Percent NTT per

AVG Student AVG Percent TT per AVG

Student 49.04 43.36 53.04% 46.96%

AXLE Review ‐ 3b Results by Department

AXLE ONLY Subject Code

Total Credits AXLE

Population

NTT Credits AXLE

Population

T‐TT Credits AXLE

PopulationPercent NTT

Percent TT

AADS 330 141 189 42.73% 57.27%

AMER 276 150 126 54.35% 45.65%

ANTH 1549 228 1321 14.72% 85.28%

ARA 160 160 0 100.00% 0.00%

ASIA 168 90 78 53.57% 46.43%

ASTR 525 78 447 14.86% 85.14%

BSCI 3102 637 2465 20.54% 79.46%

CHEM 3092 1099 1993 35.54% 64.46%

CHIN 414 414 0 100.00% 0.00%

CLAS 990 738 252 74.55% 25.45%

CLT 12 0 12 0.00% 100.00%

CMST 1728 879 849 50.87% 49.13%

CTLN 6 0 6 0.00% 100.00%

ECON 5910 3672 2238 62.13% 37.87%

EES 919 501 418 54.52% 45.48%

ENGL 5321 2912 2409 54.73% 45.27%

EUS 213 45 168 21.13% 78.87%

FA 1662 657 1005 39.53% 60.47%

FILM 192 114 78 59.38% 40.63%

9

AXLE Review ‐ 3b Results by Department

AXLE ONLY Subject Code

Total Credits AXLE

Population

NTT Credits AXLE

Population

T‐TT Credits AXLE

PopulationPercent NTT

Percent TT

FNEC 852 711 141 83.45% 16.55%

FREN 1207 982 225 81.36% 18.64%

GER 301 187 114 62.13% 37.87%

GRK 49 9 40 18.37% 81.63%

HEBR 41 41 0 100.00% 0.00%

HIST 3204 858 2346 26.78% 73.22%

HONS 516 0 516 0.00% 100.00%

HUM 342 294 48 85.96% 14.04%

ITA 393 337 56 85.75% 14.25%

JAPN 55 55 0 100.00% 0.00%

JS 261 12 249 4.60% 95.40%

LAS 69 66 3 95.65% 4.35%

LAT 301 250 51 83.06% 16.94%

MATH 3642 2861 781 78.56% 21.44%

MGRL 2445 2316 129 94.72% 5.28%

MHS 285 252 33 88.42% 11.58%

MUSL 2934 2091 843 71.27% 28.73%

NSC 132 63 69 47.73% 52.27%

PHIL 3693 2136 1557 57.84% 42.16%

PHYS 1525 63 1462 4.13% 95.87%

PORT 173 128 45 73.99% 26.01%

PPS 36 36 0 100.00% 0.00%

PSCI 4242 1551 2691 36.56% 63.44%

PSY 3796 1500 2296 39.52% 60.48%

RLST 699 42 657 6.01% 93.99%

RUSS 196 39 157 19.90% 80.10%

SOC 3081 1500 1581 48.69% 51.31%

SPAN 4540 3778 762 83.22% 16.78%

THTR 498 188 310 37.75% 62.25%

WGS 456 450 6 98.68% 1.32%

10

For questions 4‐6, the following calculations were made: Total Grades during CPLE years = 72331 Total Grades during AXLE years = 82548 Growth Rate of Grades = 14.13% Percent of CPLE Total = CPLE Grades in department/Total Grades during CPLE years Percent of AXLE Total = AXLE Grades in department/Total Grades during AXLE years Percent Difference = Percent of AXLE Total ‐ Percent of CPLE Total Proportioned Change = Percent Difference/(Percent of AXLE Total + Percent of CPLE Total) Discipline % Change = (AXLE Grades ‐ CPLE Grades)/CPLE Grades *if CPLE Grades = 0, then Discipline % Change = 99.99%

Change as % of Total Change =

(AXLE Grades ‐ CPLE Grades) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

(Total Grades during AXLE years ‐ Total Grades during CPLE years)

Growth Multiple = Discipline % Change/Growth Rate of Grades *if CPLE Grades = 0, then Growth Multiple = 99.9 “Marked Change” = If Growth Multiple is >=2 or

11

4. Are fewer students taking Math courses than before? ‐‐Registrar: Comparison of enrollment figures by department (Math) In order to give an accurate comparison of Math enrollment, an analysis was done of grades in Math by CPLE students vs. Grades in Math by AXLE students. Enrollment numbers can vary per course – and they do not take into account the fact that some students are taking a course multiple times to pass. Grades give an honest indication of the intent of the student who “needs” the course. Hence, repeat credit is not included, but final Fail grades are. Thus, the total number of grades in the Math department earned by the CPLE population was compared with the total number of grades in Math by the AXLE population. Transfer credit was included, but Repeat Credit, AP credit, and post‐matriculation credit were not.

AXLE Review ‐ 4a Percent Math PopulationGrades

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference

Percent of CPLE Total Grades Assigned

Percent of AXLE Total Grades Assigned

Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change

Change as % of Total Change

Growth Multiple

Marked Change

1673 1226 ‐447 5.61% 4.33% ‐12.83% ‐26.72% 29.10% 5.19 Yes

As a literal interpretation of the question, a comparison also was made of ALL grades by A&S students ONLY, from the age of CPLE (02F‐04S) vs. the same length of time from the age of AXLE (07F‐09S). The two‐year periods were chosen to select time periods in the population grades that were pure CPLE and as pure AXLE as possible, without them being too far apart. The student’s school was the school the student was in at the time the course was taken. For percentage of total grades, the number of math grades earned by A&S students in each age was divided by the total of all grades in all schools by students who were in A&S at the time of the grade are counted in each age. Again, transfer credit was included, but Repeat Credit, AP credit, and post‐matriculation credit were not.

AXLE Review ‐ 4b Percent Math AllGrades

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference

Percent of CPLE Total

Percent of AXLE Total

Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

3743 3833 90 5.17% 4.64% ‐5.41% 2.40% 0.88% 0.17 No

Please see #6 for an additional explanation and in relation to other subjects.

12

5. Are fewer students taking foreign language courses than before? ‐‐Registrar: comparison of enrollment figures by subject area Same as 11, but for FL subjects as a group. This was done both including First‐Semester Foreign Language courses and excluding them. Some first‐semester language courses were included in AXLE erroneously for the first few years, making the exclusion not an accurate reflection, but it is included. For individual subject results, see #13. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit or post‐matriculation. Population Only: Including 1st Semester Foreign Language

AXLE Review ‐ 5aa Percent FL PopulationGrades

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

3259 3130 ‐129 10.92% 11.06% 0.62% ‐3.96% 8.40% 0.77 NoPlease see #13 for an additional view and in relation to other subjects. Excluding 1st Semester Foreign Language

AXLE Review ‐ 5ab Percent FL PopulationGrades

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

2853 2832 ‐21 9.56% 10.01% 2.27% ‐0.74% 1.37% 0.14 No All Grades: Including 1st Semester Foreign Language

AXLE Review ‐ 5ba Percent FL AllGrades

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

7848 8856 1008 10.85% 10.73% ‐0.56% 12.84% 9.87% 0.91 NoPlease see #13 for an additional view and in relation to other subjects. Excluding 1st Semester Foreign Language

AXLE Review ‐ 5bb Percent FL AllGrades

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

6791 7738 947 9.39% 9.37% ‐0.08% 13.94% 9.27% 0.99 No

13

6. Have particular disciplines or levels of courses seen large unexpected or unexplained drops in enrollment since AXLE was implemented. Marked Change is a statistical interpretation only of the assessment of whether the change is substantial given the numbers in the subject. It is not an assessment of the pedagogical meaning of the change. For example, the change in Math is not substantial. However, it is a drop in proportion to the increase in total grades. Whether Math grade counts should drop at all is a matter for the committee to decide. Transfer credit is counted, but not AP credit, repeat credit, or post‐matriculation.

Population by subject area

AXLE Review ‐ 6a Percent Subj PopulationGrades

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

CLT 0 7 7 0.00% 0.02% 100.00% 99.99% ‐0.46% 99.90 No EMT 0 3 3 0.00% 0.01% 100.00% 99.99% ‐0.20% 99.90 No MHS 0 197 197 0.00% 0.70% 100.00% 99.99% ‐

12.83% 99.90 Yes

PPS 0 12 12 0.00% 0.04% 100.00% 99.99% ‐0.78% 99.90 No GNEL 11 0 ‐11 0.04% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% 0.72% 19.42 No LING 11 0 ‐11 0.04% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% 0.72% 19.42 No STH 28 0 ‐28 0.09% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% 1.82% 19.42 Yes NS 22 3 ‐19 0.07% 0.01% ‐74.86% ‐86.36% 1.24% 16.77 Yes WSKL 10 3 ‐7 0.03% 0.01% ‐51.94% ‐70.00% 0.46% 13.60 No HUM 450 154 ‐296 1.51% 0.54% ‐46.97% ‐65.78% 19.27% 12.78 Yes AMER 247 93 ‐154 0.83% 0.33% ‐43.17% ‐62.35% 10.03% 12.11 Yes WGS 428 163 ‐265 1.43% 0.58% ‐42.70% ‐61.92% 17.25% 12.03 Yes JAPN 52 21 ‐31 0.17% 0.07% ‐40.28% ‐59.62% 2.02% 11.58 Yes EES 812 454 ‐358 2.72% 1.60% ‐25.83% ‐44.09% 23.31% 8.56 Yes GER 228 136 ‐92 0.76% 0.48% ‐22.78% ‐40.35% 5.99% 7.84 Yes LAS 52 33 ‐19 0.17% 0.12% ‐19.83% ‐36.54% 1.24% 7.10 Yes THTR 267 174 ‐93 0.89% 0.61% ‐18.55% ‐34.83% 6.05% 6.77 Yes CMST 937 653 ‐284 3.14% 2.31% ‐15.29% ‐30.31% 18.49% 5.89 Yes ANTH 814 574 ‐240 2.73% 2.03% ‐14.72% ‐29.48% 15.63% 5.73 Yes HIST 1697 1243 ‐454 5.69% 4.39% ‐12.85% ‐26.75% 29.56% 5.20 Yes MATH 1673 1226 ‐447 5.61% 4.33% ‐12.83% ‐26.72% 29.10% 5.19 Yes CTLN 9 7 ‐2 0.03% 0.02% ‐9.89% ‐22.22% 0.13% 4.32 No FA 890 715 ‐175 2.98% 2.53% ‐8.28% ‐19.66% 11.39% 3.82 Yes GRK 26 21 ‐5 0.09% 0.07% ‐8.02% ‐19.23% 0.33% 3.74 No RLST 331 268 ‐63 1.11% 0.95% ‐7.90% ‐19.03% 4.10% 3.70 Yes

14

AXLE Review ‐ 6a Percent Subj PopulationGrades

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

PSCI 1970 1617 ‐353 6.60% 5.71% ‐7.22% ‐17.92% 22.98% 3.48 Yes SPAN 1931 1663 ‐268 6.47% 5.88% ‐4.82% ‐13.88% 17.45% 2.70 Yes ECON 2473 2152 ‐321 8.29% 7.61% ‐4.31% ‐12.98% 20.90% 2.52 Yes INDS 8 7 ‐1 0.03% 0.02% ‐4.03% ‐12.50% 0.07% 2.43 No FREN 518 486 ‐32 1.74% 1.72% ‐0.55% ‐6.18% 2.08% 1.20 No CLAS 355 339 ‐16 1.19% 1.20% 0.34% ‐4.51% 1.04% 0.88 No SOC 1120 1096 ‐24 3.75% 3.87% 1.56% ‐2.14% 1.56% 0.42 No PSY 1601 1573 ‐28 5.37% 5.56% 1.76% ‐1.75% 1.82% 0.34 No ASTR 295 290 ‐5 0.99% 1.02% 1.79% ‐1.69% 0.33% 0.33 No LAT 116 115 ‐1 0.39% 0.41% 2.21% ‐0.86% 0.07% 0.17 No ENGL 1989 1999 10 6.67% 7.06% 2.89% 0.50% ‐0.65% ‐0.10 No NSC 165 166 1 0.55% 0.59% 2.94% 0.61% ‐0.07% ‐0.12 No PHYS 890 898 8 2.98% 3.17% 3.09% 0.90% ‐0.52% ‐0.17 No 1Other Schools

1183 1207 24 3.97% 4.27% 3.65% 2.03% ‐1.56% ‐0.39 Yes

PHIL 1217 1245 28 4.08% 4.40% 3.78% 2.30% ‐1.82% ‐0.45 Yes CHEM 1841 2032 191 6.17% 7.18% 7.56% 10.37% ‐

12.43% ‐2.02 Yes

BSCI 1432 1629 197 4.80% 5.76% 9.06% 13.76% ‐12.83%

‐2.67 Yes

RUSS 84 100 16 0.28% 0.35% 11.31% 19.05% ‐1.04% ‐3.70 Yes HONS 130 172 42 0.44% 0.61% 16.49% 32.31% ‐2.73% ‐6.27 Yes ITA 197 277 80 0.66% 0.98% 19.43% 40.61% ‐5.21% ‐7.89 Yes HEBR 15 22 7 0.05% 0.08% 21.45% 46.67% ‐0.46% ‐9.06 No MUSL 608 955 347 2.04% 3.37% 24.70% 57.07% ‐

22.59% ‐11.08 Yes

EUS 50 97 47 0.17% 0.34% 34.33% 94.00% ‐3.06% ‐18.26 Yes PORT 25 57 32 0.08% 0.20% 41.24% 128.00% ‐2.08% ‐24.86 Yes AADS 52 120 68 0.17% 0.42% 41.74% 130.77% ‐4.43% ‐25.40 Yes ASIA 28 74 46 0.09% 0.26% 47.18% 164.29% ‐2.99% ‐31.91 Yes MGRL 475 1349 874 1.59% 4.77% 49.93% 184.00% ‐56.9% ‐35.74 Yes CHIN 52 164 112 0.17% 0.58% 53.76% 215.38% ‐7.29% ‐41.83 Yes ARA 6 61 55 0.02% 0.22% 82.93% 916.67% ‐3.58% ‐178.04 Yes FILM 7 85 78 0.02% 0.30% 85.51% 1114.29% ‐5.08% ‐216.42 Yes JS 5 90 85 0.02% 0.32% 89.99% 1700.00% ‐5.53% ‐330.18 Yes

15

AXLE Review ‐ 6a Percent Subj PopulationGrades (Alpha Order)

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

MarkedChange

1Other Schools

1183 1207 24 3.97% 4.27% 3.65% 2.03% ‐1.56% ‐0.39 Yes

AADS 52 120 68 0.17% 0.42% 41.74% 130.77% ‐4.43% ‐25.40 Yes AMER 247 93 ‐154 0.83% 0.33% ‐43.17% ‐62.35% 10.03% 12.11 Yes ANTH 814 574 ‐240 2.73% 2.03% ‐14.72% ‐29.48% 15.63% 5.73 Yes ARA 6 61 55 0.02% 0.22% 82.93% 916.67% ‐3.58% ‐178.04 Yes ASIA 28 74 46 0.09% 0.26% 47.18% 164.29% ‐2.99% ‐31.91 Yes ASTR 295 290 ‐5 0.99% 1.02% 1.79% ‐1.69% 0.33% 0.33 No BSCI 1432 1629 197 4.80% 5.76% 9.06% 13.76% ‐

12.83% ‐2.67 Yes

CHEM 1841 2032 191 6.17% 7.18% 7.56% 10.37% ‐12.43%

‐2.02 Yes

CHIN 52 164 112 0.17% 0.58% 53.76% 215.38% ‐7.29% ‐41.83 Yes CLAS 355 339 ‐16 1.19% 1.20% 0.34% ‐4.51% 1.04% 0.88 No CLT 0 7 7 0.00% 0.02% 100.00% 99.99% ‐0.46% 99.90 No CMST 937 653 ‐284 3.14% 2.31% ‐15.29% ‐30.31% 18.49% 5.89 Yes CTLN 9 7 ‐2 0.03% 0.02% ‐9.89% ‐22.22% 0.13% 4.32 No ECON 2473 2152 ‐321 8.29% 7.61% ‐4.31% ‐12.98% 20.90% 2.52 Yes EES 812 454 ‐358 2.72% 1.60% ‐25.83% ‐44.09% 23.31% 8.56 Yes EMT 0 3 3 0.00% 0.01% 100.00% 99.99% ‐0.20% 99.90 No ENGL 1989 1999 10 6.67% 7.06% 2.89% 0.50% ‐0.65% ‐0.10 No EUS 50 97 47 0.17% 0.34% 34.33% 94.00% ‐3.06% ‐18.26 Yes FA 890 715 ‐175 2.98% 2.53% ‐8.28% ‐19.66% 11.39% 3.82 Yes FILM 7 85 78 0.02% 0.30% 85.51% 1114.29% ‐5.08% ‐216.42 Yes FREN 518 486 ‐32 1.74% 1.72% ‐0.55% ‐6.18% 2.08% 1.20 No GER 228 136 ‐92 0.76% 0.48% ‐22.78% ‐40.35% 5.99% 7.84 Yes GNEL 11 0 ‐11 0.04% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% 0.72% 19.42 No GRK 26 21 ‐5 0.09% 0.07% ‐8.02% ‐19.23% 0.33% 3.74 No HEBR 15 22 7 0.05% 0.08% 21.45% 46.67% ‐0.46% ‐9.06 No HIST 1697 1243 ‐454 5.69% 4.39% ‐12.85% ‐26.75% 29.56% 5.20 Yes HONS 130 172 42 0.44% 0.61% 16.49% 32.31% ‐2.73% ‐6.27 Yes HUM 450 154 ‐296 1.51% 0.54% ‐46.97% ‐65.78% 19.27% 12.78 Yes INDS 8 7 ‐1 0.03% 0.02% ‐4.03% ‐12.50% 0.07% 2.43 No ITA 197 277 80 0.66% 0.98% 19.43% 40.61% ‐5.21% ‐7.89 Yes

16

AXLE Review ‐ 6a Percent Subj PopulationGrades (Alpha Order)

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

MarkedChange

JAPN 52 21 ‐31 0.17% 0.07% ‐40.28% ‐59.62% 2.02% 11.58 Yes JS 5 90 85 0.02% 0.32% 89.99% 1700.00% ‐5.53% ‐330.18 Yes LAS 52 33 ‐19 0.17% 0.12% ‐19.83% ‐36.54% 1.24% 7.10 Yes LAT 116 115 ‐1 0.39% 0.41% 2.21% ‐0.86% 0.07% 0.17 No LING 11 0 ‐11 0.04% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% 0.72% 19.42 No MATH 1673 1226 ‐447 5.61% 4.33% ‐12.83% ‐26.72% 29.10% 5.19 Yes MGRL 475 1349 874 1.59% 4.77% 49.93% 184.00% ‐

56.90% ‐35.74 Yes

MHS 0 197 197 0.00% 0.70% 100.00% 99.99% ‐12.83%

99.90 Yes

MUSL 608 955 347 2.04% 3.37% 24.70% 57.07% ‐22.59%

‐11.08 Yes

NS 22 3 ‐19 0.07% 0.01% ‐74.86% ‐86.36% 1.24% 16.77 Yes NSC 165 166 1 0.55% 0.59% 2.94% 0.61% ‐0.07% ‐0.12 No PHIL 1217 1245 28 4.08% 4.40% 3.78% 2.30% ‐1.82% ‐0.45 Yes PHYS 890 898 8 2.98% 3.17% 3.09% 0.90% ‐0.52% ‐0.17 No PORT 25 57 32 0.08% 0.20% 41.24% 128.00% ‐2.08% ‐24.86 Yes PPS 0 12 12 0.00% 0.04% 100.00% 99.99% ‐0.78% 99.90 No PSCI 1970 1617 ‐353 6.60% 5.71% ‐7.22% ‐17.92% 22.98% 3.48 Yes PSY 1601 1573 ‐28 5.37% 5.56% 1.76% ‐1.75% 1.82% 0.34 No RLST 331 268 ‐63 1.11% 0.95% ‐7.90% ‐19.03% 4.10% 3.70 Yes RUSS 84 100 16 0.28% 0.35% 11.31% 19.05% ‐1.04% ‐3.70 Yes SOC 1120 1096 ‐24 3.75% 3.87% 1.56% ‐2.14% 1.56% 0.42 No SPAN 1931 1663 ‐268 6.47% 5.88% ‐4.82% ‐13.88% 17.45% 2.70 Yes STH 28 0 ‐28 0.09% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% 1.82% 19.42 Yes THTR 267 174 ‐93 0.89% 0.61% ‐18.55% ‐34.83% 6.05% 6.77 Yes WGS 428 163 ‐265 1.43% 0.58% ‐42.70% ‐61.92% 17.25% 12.03 Yes WSKL 10 3 ‐7 0.03% 0.01% ‐51.94% ‐70.00% 0.46% 13.60 No

17

All Grades by Subject Area

AXLE Review ‐ 6b Percent Subj AllGrades

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

FILM 9 281 272 0.01% 0.34% 92.95% 3022.22% 2.66% 213.96 Yes JS 11 290 279 0.02% 0.35% 91.70% 2536.36% 2.73% 179.56 Yes CSET 0 1 1 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.99% 0.01% 99.90 No EMT 0 18 18 0.00% 0.02% 100.00% 99.99% 0.18% 99.90 No FNTM 0 1 1 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.99% 0.01% 99.90 No MHS 0 606 606 0.00% 0.73% 100.00% 99.99% 5.93% 99.90 Yes PPS 0 18 18 0.00% 0.02% 100.00% 99.99% 0.18% 99.90 No CLT 1 4 3 0.00% 0.00% 55.60% 300.00% 0.03% 21.24 No ASIA 78 302 224 0.11% 0.37% 54.47% 287.18% 2.19% 20.33 Yes PORT 48 178 130 0.07% 0.22% 52.93% 270.83% 1.27% 19.17 Yes GNEL 16 48 32 0.02% 0.06% 44.88% 200.00% 0.31% 14.16 No MGRL 1297 3822 2525 1.79% 4.63% 44.17% 194.68% 24.71% 13.78 Yes ARA 66 163 97 0.09% 0.20% 36.79% 146.97% 0.95% 10.40 No CHIN 208 480 272 0.29% 0.58% 33.82% 130.77% 2.66% 9.26 Yes HEBR 49 108 59 0.07% 0.13% 31.77% 120.41% 0.58% 8.52 No EUS 128 282 154 0.18% 0.34% 31.75% 120.31% 1.51% 8.52 Yes JAPN 85 179 94 0.12% 0.22% 29.71% 110.59% 0.92% 7.83 No AADS 128 259 131 0.18% 0.31% 27.88% 102.34% 1.28% 7.25 Yes INDS 22 40 18 0.03% 0.05% 22.87% 81.82% 0.18% 5.79 No NSC 415 712 297 0.57% 0.86% 20.11% 71.57% 2.91% 5.07 Yes MUSL 1798 3072 1274 2.49% 3.72% 19.91% 70.86% 12.47% 5.02 Yes ITA 547 792 245 0.76% 0.96% 11.84% 44.79% 2.40% 3.17 Yes RUSS 134 178 44 0.19% 0.22% 7.58% 32.84% 0.43% 2.32 No PHYS 1850 2436 586 2.56% 2.95% 7.14% 31.68% 5.74% 2.24 Yes PHIL 2781 3604 823 3.84% 4.37% 6.35% 29.59% 8.06% 2.10 Yes 1Other Schools

3003 3817 814 4.15% 4.62% 5.38% 27.11% 7.97% 1.92 No

BSCI 4078 5050 972 5.64% 6.12% 4.08% 23.84% 9.51% 1.69 No ASTR 510 630 120 0.71% 0.76% 3.96% 23.53% 1.17% 1.67 No SOC 2635 3231 596 3.64% 3.91% 3.59% 22.62% 5.83% 1.60 No HONS 288 349 61 0.40% 0.42% 3.00% 21.18% 0.60% 1.50 No CHEM 4971 5704 733 6.87% 6.91% 0.27% 14.75% 7.17% 1.04 No CLAS 836 958 122 1.16% 1.16% 0.20% 14.59% 1.19% 1.03 No ENGL 4992 5640 648 6.90% 6.83% ‐0.50% 12.98% 6.34% 0.92 No

18

AXLE Review ‐ 6b Percent Subj AllGrades

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

FREN 1494 1620 126 2.07% 1.96% ‐2.56% 8.43% 1.23% 0.60 No LAS 126 136 10 0.17% 0.16% ‐2.79% 7.94% 0.10% 0.56 No PSY 4200 4520 320 5.81% 5.48% ‐2.93% 7.62% 3.13% 0.54 No CTLN 17 18 1 0.02% 0.02% ‐3.75% 5.88% 0.01% 0.42 No PSCI 4412 4625 213 6.10% 5.60% ‐4.25% 4.83% 2.08% 0.34 No ECON 5660 5816 156 7.83% 7.05% ‐5.24% 2.76% 1.53% 0.20 No SPAN 4153 4263 110 5.74% 5.16% ‐5.29% 2.65% 1.08% 0.19 No MATH 3743 3833 90 5.17% 4.64% ‐5.41% 2.40% 0.88% 0.17 No HIST 3933 3841 ‐92 5.44% 4.65% ‐7.77% ‐2.34% ‐0.90% ‐0.17 No LAT 321 302 ‐19 0.44% 0.37% ‐9.63% ‐5.92% ‐0.19% ‐0.42 No THTR 672 619 ‐53 0.93% 0.75% ‐10.67% ‐7.89% ‐0.52% ‐0.56 No CMST 1948 1729 ‐219 2.69% 2.09% ‐12.50% ‐11.24% ‐2.14% ‐0.80 Yes ANTH 1827 1599 ‐228 2.53% 1.94% ‐13.19% ‐12.48% ‐2.23% ‐0.88 Yes FA 2395 2051 ‐344 3.31% 2.48% ‐14.26% ‐14.36% ‐3.37% ‐1.02 Yes RLST 994 836 ‐158 1.37% 1.01% ‐15.14% ‐15.90% ‐1.55% ‐1.13 Yes GER 646 528 ‐118 0.89% 0.64% ‐16.54% ‐18.27% ‐1.15% ‐1.29 Yes EES 2298 1785 ‐513 3.18% 2.16% ‐19.00% ‐22.32% ‐5.02% ‐1.58 Yes AMER 503 383 ‐120 0.70% 0.46% ‐19.96% ‐23.86% ‐1.17% ‐1.69 Yes NS 48 36 ‐12 0.07% 0.04% ‐20.69% ‐25.00% ‐0.12% ‐1.77 No GRK 80 47 ‐33 0.11% 0.06% ‐32.03% ‐41.25% ‐0.32% ‐2.92 No WGS 944 539 ‐405 1.31% 0.65% ‐33.31% ‐42.90% ‐3.96% ‐3.04 Yes WSKL 23 9 ‐14 0.03% 0.01% ‐48.93% ‐60.87% ‐0.14% ‐4.31 No MS 5 1 ‐4 0.01% 0.00% ‐70.18% ‐80.00% ‐0.04% ‐5.66 No HUM 899 159 ‐740 1.24% 0.19% ‐73.16% ‐82.31% ‐7.24% ‐5.83 Yes LING 5 0 ‐5 0.01% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% ‐0.05% ‐7.08 No SSCI 1 0 ‐1 0.00% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% ‐0.01% ‐7.08 No

19

AXLE Review ‐ 6b Percent Subj AllGrades (Alpha Order)

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

WSKL 23 9 ‐14 0.03% 0.01% ‐48.93% ‐60.87% ‐0.14% ‐4.31 No WGS 944 539 ‐405 1.31% 0.65% ‐33.31% ‐42.90% ‐3.96% ‐3.04 Yes THTR 672 619 ‐53 0.93% 0.75% ‐10.67% ‐7.89% ‐0.52% ‐0.56 No SSCI 1 0 ‐1 0.00% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% ‐0.01% ‐7.08 No SPAN 4153 4263 110 5.74% 5.16% ‐5.29% 2.65% 1.08% 0.19 No SOC 2635 3231 596 3.64% 3.91% 3.59% 22.62% 5.83% 1.60 No RUSS 134 178 44 0.19% 0.22% 7.58% 32.84% 0.43% 2.32 No RLST 994 836 ‐158 1.37% 1.01% ‐15.14% ‐15.90% ‐1.55% ‐1.13 Yes PSY 4200 4520 320 5.81% 5.48% ‐2.93% 7.62% 3.13% 0.54 No PSCI 4412 4625 213 6.10% 5.60% ‐4.25% 4.83% 2.08% 0.34 No PPS 0 18 18 0.00% 0.02% 100.00% 99.99% 0.18% 99.90 No PORT 48 178 130 0.07% 0.22% 52.93% 270.83% 1.27% 19.17 Yes PHYS 1850 2436 586 2.56% 2.95% 7.14% 31.68% 5.74% 2.24 Yes PHIL 2781 3604 823 3.84% 4.37% 6.35% 29.59% 8.06% 2.10 Yes NSC 415 712 297 0.57% 0.86% 20.11% 71.57% 2.91% 5.07 Yes NS 48 36 ‐12 0.07% 0.04% ‐20.69% ‐25.00% ‐0.12% ‐1.77 No MUSL 1798 3072 1274 2.49% 3.72% 19.91% 70.86% 12.47% 5.02 Yes MS 5 1 ‐4 0.01% 0.00% ‐70.18% ‐80.00% ‐0.04% ‐5.66 No MHS 0 606 606 0.00% 0.73% 100.00% 99.99% 5.93% 99.90 Yes MGRL 1297 3822 2525 1.79% 4.63% 44.17% 194.68% 24.71% 13.78 Yes MATH 3743 3833 90 5.17% 4.64% ‐5.41% 2.40% 0.88% 0.17 No LING 5 0 ‐5 0.01% 0.00% ‐100.00% ‐100.00% ‐0.05% ‐7.08 No LAT 321 302 ‐19 0.44% 0.37% ‐9.63% ‐5.92% ‐0.19% ‐0.42 No LAS 126 136 10 0.17% 0.16% ‐2.79% 7.94% 0.10% 0.56 No JS 11 290 279 0.02% 0.35% 91.70% 2536.36% 2.73% 179.56 Yes JAPN 85 179 94 0.12% 0.22% 29.71% 110.59% 0.92% 7.83 No ITA 547 792 245 0.76% 0.96% 11.84% 44.79% 2.40% 3.17 Yes INDS 22 40 18 0.03% 0.05% 22.87% 81.82% 0.18% 5.79 No HUM 899 159 ‐740 1.24% 0.19% ‐73.16% ‐82.31% ‐7.24% ‐5.83 Yes HONS 288 349 61 0.40% 0.42% 3.00% 21.18% 0.60% 1.50 No HIST 3933 3841 ‐92 5.44% 4.65% ‐7.77% ‐2.34% ‐0.90% ‐0.17 No HEBR 49 108 59 0.07% 0.13% 31.77% 120.41% 0.58% 8.52 No GRK 80 47 ‐33 0.11% 0.06% ‐32.03% ‐41.25% ‐0.32% ‐2.92 No

20

AXLE Review ‐ 6b Percent Subj AllGrades (Alpha Order)

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

GNEL 16 48 32 0.02% 0.06% 44.88% 200.00% 0.31% 14.16 No GER 646 528 ‐118 0.89% 0.64% ‐16.54% ‐18.27% ‐1.15% ‐1.29 Yes FREN 1494 1620 126 2.07% 1.96% ‐2.56% 8.43% 1.23% 0.60 No FNTM 0 1 1 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.99% 0.01% 99.90 No FILM 9 281 272 0.01% 0.34% 92.95% 3022.22% 2.66% 213.96 Yes FA 2395 2051 ‐344 3.31% 2.48% ‐14.26% ‐14.36% ‐3.37% ‐1.02 Yes EUS 128 282 154 0.18% 0.34% 31.75% 120.31% 1.51% 8.52 Yes ENGL 4992 5640 648 6.90% 6.83% ‐0.50% 12.98% 6.34% 0.92 No EMT 0 18 18 0.00% 0.02% 100.00% 99.99% 0.18% 99.90 No EES 2298 1785 ‐513 3.18% 2.16% ‐19.00% ‐22.32% ‐5.02% ‐1.58 Yes ECON 5660 5816 156 7.83% 7.05% ‐5.24% 2.76% 1.53% 0.20 No CTLN 17 18 1 0.02% 0.02% ‐3.75% 5.88% 0.01% 0.42 No CSET 0 1 1 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.99% 0.01% 99.90 No CMST 1948 1729 ‐219 2.69% 2.09% ‐12.50% ‐11.24% ‐2.14% ‐0.80 Yes CLT 1 4 3 0.00% 0.00% 55.60% 300.00% 0.03% 21.24 No CLAS 836 958 122 1.16% 1.16% 0.20% 14.59% 1.19% 1.03 No CHIN 208 480 272 0.29% 0.58% 33.82% 130.77% 2.66% 9.26 Yes CHEM 4971 5704 733 6.87% 6.91% 0.27% 14.75% 7.17% 1.04 No BSCI 4078 5050 972 5.64% 6.12% 4.08% 23.84% 9.51% 1.69 No ASTR 510 630 120 0.71% 0.76% 3.96% 23.53% 1.17% 1.67 No ASIA 78 302 224 0.11% 0.37% 54.47% 287.18% 2.19% 20.33 Yes ARA 66 163 97 0.09% 0.20% 36.79% 146.97% 0.95% 10.40 No ANTH 1827 1599 ‐228 2.53% 1.94% ‐13.19% ‐12.48% ‐2.23% ‐0.88 Yes AMER 503 383 ‐120 0.70% 0.46% ‐19.96% ‐23.86% ‐1.17% ‐1.69 Yes AADS 128 259 131 0.18% 0.31% 27.88% 102.34% 1.28% 7.25 Yes 1Other Schools

3003 3817 814 4.15% 4.62% 5.38% 27.11% 7.97% 1.92 No

21

AXLE Review ‐ 6a Percent Subj PopulationGrades (Foreign Languages)

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

JAPN 52 21 ‐31 0.17% 0.07% ‐40.28% ‐59.62% 2.02% 11.58 Yes GER 228 136 ‐92 0.76% 0.48% ‐22.78% ‐40.35% 5.99% 7.84 Yes CTLN 9 7 ‐2 0.03% 0.02% ‐9.89% ‐22.22% 0.13% 4.32 No GRK 26 21 ‐5 0.09% 0.07% ‐8.02% ‐19.23% 0.33% 3.74 No SPAN 1931 1663 ‐268 6.47% 5.88% ‐4.82% ‐13.88% 17.45% 2.70 Yes FREN 518 486 ‐32 1.74% 1.72% ‐0.55% ‐6.18% 2.08% 1.20 No LAT 116 115 ‐1 0.39% 0.41% 2.21% ‐0.86% 0.07% 0.17 No RUSS 84 100 16 0.28% 0.35% 11.31% 19.05% ‐1.04% ‐3.70 Yes ITA 197 277 80 0.66% 0.98% 19.43% 40.61% ‐5.21% ‐7.89 Yes HEBR 15 22 7 0.05% 0.08% 21.45% 46.67% ‐0.46% ‐9.06 No PORT 25 57 32 0.08% 0.20% 41.24% 128.00% ‐2.08% ‐24.86 Yes CHIN 52 164 112 0.17% 0.58% 53.76% 215.38% ‐7.29% ‐41.83 Yes ARA 6 61 55 0.02% 0.22% 82.93% 916.67% ‐3.58% ‐178.04 Yes

AXLE Review ‐ 6b Percent Subj AllGrades (Foreign Languages)

Subject Rubric

CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Discipline % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

PORT 48 178 130 0.07% 0.22% 52.93% 270.83% 1.27% 19.17 Yes ARA 66 163 97 0.09% 0.20% 36.79% 146.97% 0.95% 10.40 No CHIN 208 480 272 0.29% 0.58% 33.82% 130.77% 2.66% 9.26 Yes HEBR 49 108 59 0.07% 0.13% 31.77% 120.41% 0.58% 8.52 No JAPN 85 179 94 0.12% 0.22% 29.71% 110.59% 0.92% 7.83 No ITA 547 792 245 0.76% 0.96% 11.84% 44.79% 2.40% 3.17 Yes RUSS 134 178 44 0.19% 0.22% 7.58% 32.84% 0.43% 2.32 No FREN 1494 1620 126 2.07% 1.96% ‐2.56% 8.43% 1.23% 0.60 No CTLN 17 18 1 0.02% 0.02% ‐3.75% 5.88% 0.01% 0.42 No SPAN 4153 4263 110 5.74% 5.16% ‐5.29% 2.65% 1.08% 0.19 No LAT 321 302 ‐19 0.44% 0.37% ‐9.63% ‐5.92% ‐0.19% ‐0.42 No GER 646 528 ‐118 0.89% 0.64% ‐16.54% ‐18.27% ‐1.15% ‐1.29 Yes GRK 80 47 ‐33 0.11% 0.06% ‐32.03% ‐41.25% ‐0.32% ‐2.92 No

22

Lower course/Upper course levels: For levels, only 100‐level and 200‐level grades were considered. 000‐level (099, Visions, noeq transfer) and 300‐level courses were not considered. Results are shown in total, but also by department. Some departments recently renumbered some OR ALL of their courses, rendering the total substantially changed for reasons entirely unrelated to AXLE. This also warps the statistical interpretations of the subject version, since they are based on the total. Also, in the AXLE degree requirements, the only instance in which the difference between 100 and 200 level matters is in writing courses. Further, this is the only instance in which a difference between 100 and 200 is meaningful in ANY course. Still, most introductory courses are 100‐level. An individual student or a set of individual students will, theoretically, have fewer 100‐level courses in their later years. However, in a given term, the number of students in the University taking 100‐level courses will not be different, since new freshmen arrive every year. For this reason, the two results below are unrelated and cannot be compared with each other. Further, most of the 100‐level/200‐level number changes happened in the second half of the population’s career. Again, marked change is a statistical assessment, not pedagogical.

Population by level (100 vs. 200)

AXLE Review – 6ea Percent Levels Population

Level CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Level % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

100‐level

15031 13932 ‐1099 53.82% 53.65% ‐0.74% ‐7.31% 66.16% 1.23 No

200‐level

12985 12423 ‐562 46.35% 47.41% 0.84% ‐4.33% 33.84% 0.73 No

All Grades by level (100 vs. 200)

AXLE Review ‐ 6eb Percent Levels Allgrades

Level CPLE Grades

AXLE Grades

Total Difference



Proportioned Change

Level % Change


Growth Multiple

Marked Change

100‐level

35858 40825 4967 53.55% 54.79% 1.15% 13.85% 65.81% 1.23 No

200‐level

31102 33683 2581 46.45% 45.21% ‐1.35% 8.30% 34.19% 0.74 No

23

7. Issues related to the second Writing course requirement. a. Registrar: How have students completed the second W course requirement? b. Have the 200W courses been a success? ‐‐Registrar: Have enrollments in 200W courses been full? ‐‐Implementation issue: Have enough 200W courses been created? ‐‐Policy: Should thesis prep courses count as 200W? Additional question: How many students currently use a 201W in a language to satisfy the second writing requirement? a. How have students completed the second W course requirement? For this analysis, students on the transfer student AXLE plan (52 students) and Honors Scholar AXLE plan (51 students) were excluded, since they have different and multiple options for the Writing requirement. Since the number of 200W courses (including Oral Communication courses) have been steadily increasing, we looked at both the AXLE population dataset as well as all current AXLE students. To determine “how” the second requirement was met, we looked at how many students have at least two 100W courses and no 200W courses, and how many students had 200W and more than one 100W (didn’t need the 200W), and how many students had one 100W and one 200W. The last group is the one that “needed” the 200W. Only passing grades that were neither repeat credit, nor AP, nor Post Matriculation, were counted. AXLE Population (602 students on AXLE or AXLE Alternate FL):

AXLE Review ‐ 7a Results Population Total Students With 200W and 1 100W With 200W and 2+ 100W Without 200W With Variance

602 240 86 265 1111 students had variances for a second 115F to count as a writing course. 265 had no 200W courses 86 had 200W courses, but also had more than one 100W course 240 students had one 100W and at least one 200W and thus needed their 200W(s) to satisfy the requirement a2. How many students used a 201W in a language to satisfy the second writing requirement? In looking at the data, we noticed that students were using a foreign language composition course (201W’s) to satisfy their second W requirement. To check this, we looked at how many of the 602 students from above had one 100W and one 200W where that 200W was French, German, Italian, or Spanish 201W.

There were 103 such students.

24

b1. Have enrollments in 200W courses been full? To determine this, we looked at enrollment tallies vs. enrollment limits in 200W courses from 05F to 09S and from 07F to 09S. In 05/06, most 200W courses did not yet exist. Also, students in AXLE that year were all Freshmen. In 06/07, some 200‐level writing courses did not have a “W” in their course number, leading to about 100 mass variances. This also led, primarily in English, to the enrollment cap for 200W courses not being enforced on those courses (some sections had upwards of 49 students). The number of courses in English counting as 200W also dropped dramatically after 07S when these issues were corrected. This did, however, allow for there to be 200W courses for those early students where there would otherwise have been very few. The 06/07 200‐level writing courses without W’s are included in the 05F to 09S data in this project. Only Arts and Science 200W courses were included, since there were over 100 200‐level courses with a W or 8 in their number in other schools that should not count in AXLE. Subject codes are the current, since all rubric changes, splits, and mergers all happene

Documents

AXLE Review Committee, 2009-2010 General findings from ......AXLE Review Committee, 2009-2010 General findings from meetings with departments • Almost all A&S faculty members are