Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making

  • Published on
    24-Feb-2016

  • View
    34

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-Making. Giovanni Sosa, Ph.D. Chaffey College RP Conference 2013. ACCJC Standards. The Standards (pg.1) Instructional programs, student support services, and library and learning support - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript

Debriefing the Critical Thinking Assessment

Using Institutional Learning Outcomes to Foster Meaningful Dialogue and Decision-MakingGiovanni Sosa, Ph.D.Chaffey CollegeRP Conference 2013The Standards (pg.1)Instructional programs, student supportservices, and library and learning supportservices facilitate the achievement of theinstitution's stated student learning outcomes

ACCJC StandardsStandard I: Institutional EffectivenessMissionImproving Institutional Effectiveness2Improving Institutional Effectiveness (IB)The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and makes changes to improve student learning

ACCJC StandardsStandard I: Institutional EffectivenessMissionImproving Institutional Effectiveness3Improving Institutional Effectiveness (IB)[it] demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes

ACCJC StandardsStandard I: Institutional EffectivenessMissionImproving Institutional Effectiveness4SLO Assessmentis a continual process!CriteriaMeans ofAssessmentSummary ofEvidenceLearningOutcomesStatementUse ofResults5Adopted Institutional SLOsCommunicationCritical Thinking & Information CompetencyCommunity/Global Awareness & ResponsibilityPersonal, Academic, and & Career Development

http://www.chaffey.edu/general_info/competencies.shtml Core CompetenciesFacione (1990)46 experts were convened to discuss role of CT in educational assessment and instruction

Identified Core CT skills and Sub-SkillsCritical ThinkingPhilosophy department, also education, social sciences, and physical sciences7Interpretation To comprehend/express meaning of wide variety of experiencesAnalysis Identify inferential relationships among statements/conceptsEvaluation Assess the credibility of statements; assess logical strength of inferential statements/conceptsInference Form hypothesesCritical Thinking: Core CT SKillsInterpretation: to restate what a person said using different words or expressions while preserving that person's intended meanings; to find an example which helps explain something to someone

-and describe a person's purposes in asking a given question

Analysis: to compare or contrast ideas, concepts, or statements; be able to identify the author's chief claim

Eval: to determine if a given claim is likely to be true or false based on what one knows or can reasonably find out.Examine the strengths/weakness in the argument being evaluated.

Inference: formulate a strategy for seeking and gathering information which will allow one to test hypotheses.85) Explanation To state results of ones reasoning;

6) Self-Regulation Self-reflection of ones views to question or confirm reasoningCritical Thinking: Core CT SKillsExplanation - to justify that reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological and contextual considerations upon which one's results were based

Self-regulation: to examine one's views on a controversial issue with sensitivity to the possible influences of one's personal bias or self-interest9MSLQ (Pintrich, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987)Developed in process of studying how to make students more efficient learners

What does the CT assessment specifically measure?

Critical Thinking AssessmentPass out assessment and let them examine and discuss with already formed groups

The critical thinking scale focuses on:How students question information Search for supporting evidence Develop their own ideas Search for possible alternative explanations

10CT assessment found to be statistically associated to course performance (r = .15)

Critical Thinking AssessmentSuccessNot SuccessfulTotalHigh CT5742100Low CT4257100Total10010020011Pertains to issues of cultural diversity, human rights, and prejudice reduction both within national borders and across national borders

Knowledge that individual possesses of other cultures (Cognitive)The extent to which individual empathizes with values of other cultures (Affective)Willingness to take stand on cultural issues (Participatory)Global Awareness (Clarke, 2004)Point 1: It also refers to attitudes of evaluatingOt

three dimensions12Inspired by Global Perspective Institute (Braskamp et al., 2011)Holistic Human Development:Cognitive domain (Whatdo I know?)Intrapersonal domain (Who am I?)Interpersonal domain (How do I relate to others?)

What does our Global Awareness assessment specifically measure?

Global Awareness AssessmentCognitive centered on ones knowledge and understanding of what is true and important to knowBeing able to take into account multiple cultural perspectives

Intrapersonal becoming more self-aware of ones strengths, values, and personal charactersitics

Interpersonal ones willingness to interact with persons with difference social norms and cultural backgrounds/acceptance of others/ being comfrotable when relating to others131907 Total Responses78 Courses 33 DepartmentsChemistry (N = 199)English (N = 195)Theatre (N =159)Cinema (N = 154)CIS (N = 137)Economics (N = 102)Voluntary ParticipationResults: Course Characteristics113 dups14SampleN = 1,907DistrictN = 56,216Transferable to UC/CSU69.8%54.8%Transferable to CSU13.2%14.5%Not Transferable16.9%30.7%Results: Course CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)

Transfer StatusCB0515SampleN = 1,907DistrictN = 52,216Face-to-face96.5%94.0%Hybrid3.5%2.2%Online0.0%3.8%Results: Course CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)

Distance LearningSampleN = 1,907DistrictN = 52,216Basic Skills1.8%16.0%Not Basic Skills98.2%84.0%Results: Course CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)

Basic SkillsCB0817SampleN = 1,791DistrictN = 18,434Cum GPA 2.922.52Units Attempted42.7834.42Units Completed40.8031.32Results: Student CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)

Performance Indicators*Rmbr unduped the file before doing these analyses (N sample = 1794)

Sample students more liekly to be full-time status.18SampleN = 1,791DistrictN = 51,526Success Rate84.470.53Withdrawal Rate3.311.1Results: Student CharacteristicsComparison with District Data (SP12)

Performance IndicatorsSampleN = 1,673DistrictN = 43,767GPA Converted Grade2.882.61*Rmbr unduped the file before doing these analyses (N sample = 1794)

Sample numbers are for corresponding courses in which forms were completed.19Critical Thinking

20CT LevelRangePercentileLow0 1924th PercentileMedium20 2825-74th PercentileHigh29 - 3575th PercentileCritical Thinking: LevelsVariables Examined:First Generation StatusGenderAge RangeParents EducationEthnicityUC/CSU Transfer vs. Non-TransferableCT Differences by Demographics/Course Transfer StatusVariables Examined:Success RateWithdrawal RateGPA Converted GradesUnits AttemptedUnits CompletedCum. GPAAssessment Tests (Reading Comp/Sentence Skills/ Math)

CT Differences by Performance IndicatorsCT LevelNumber of StudentsMean Units AttemptedLow44644.29Medium96241.26High49644.79*d = .11 - Medium level vs. Low level d = .13 Medium level vs. High levelCT Differences by Performance Indicators: Units AttemptedCT LevelNumber of StudentsMean Units EarnedLow44642.76Medium96239.06High49642.66*d = .13 for comparisons of Medium level with either Low or HighCT Differences by Performance Indicators: Units EarnedCT LevelNumber of StudentsMean Cum. GPALow4462.98Medium9622.87High4962.94*d = .13 - Medium level vs. Low level d = .09 - Medium level vs. Low levelCT Differences by Performance Indicators: Cum. GPAGlobal Awareness

GA LevelRangePercentileLow0 2524th PercentileMedium26 2825-74th PercentileHigh29 - 3075th PercentileGlobal Awareness: LevelsVariables Examined:First Generation StatusGenderAge RangeParents EducationEthnicityUC/CSU Transfer vs. Non-TransferableGA Differences by Demographics/Course Transfer StatusGA Differences by Age RangeGA Level19 or Younger

20 to 24

25 or OlderTotalLow14920996454Medium249384204837High133265215613Total5318585151904*r = .14Variables Examined:Success RateWithdrawal RateGPA Converted GradesUnits AttemptedUnits CompletedCum. GPAAssessment Tests (Reading Comp/Sentence Skills/ Math)

GA Differences by Performance IndicatorsMath arith, elem alg, college level math31GA LevelNumber of StudentsMean Units AttemptedLow45439.34Medium83741.85High61346.92*d = .09 Low vs. Medium d = .27 Low vs. High d = .17 Medium vs. HighGA Differences by Performance Indicators: Units AttemptedGA LevelNumber of StudentsMean Units EarnedLow45437.37Medium83739.76High61344.95*d = .09 Low vs. Medium d = .28 Low vs. High d = .19 Medium vs. HighGA Differences by Performance Indicators: Units EarnedGA LevelNumber of StudentsMean Sentence SkillsLow38481.73Medium69883.98High49786.40*d = .11 Low vs. Medium d = .24 Low vs. High d = .13 Medium vs. HighGA Differences by Performance Indicators: Sentence SkillsRelationship between CT and GA?Low GAHigh GATotalHigh CT120217334Low CT11766186Total237283520 r = .1535Enhancing institutional effectivenessSelf-reflective dialogueUtilized assessments serve as reliable tools for measuring CT and GABut may not adequately measure all aspects of corresponding competencyMore assessment of foundation/online coursesImplications of units attempted/earned & GPA

ConclusionsPoint 1: consioucs effort to produce and support student learning

36Random sampling for Spring 2013Inclusion of two additional core competencies for Spring 2013Division-wide assessment during Fall 2012Application to specific course level assessmentFirst Annual Student Services Poster SessionInstitutional Response to FindingsBraskamp, L. A., D. C. Braskamp, K. C. Merrill, & M. E. Engberg (2011). Global Perspective Inventory. Global Perspective Institute, Inc., http://gpi.central.eduClark, V. (2004). Students global awareness and attitudes to internationalism in a world of cultural convergence. Journal of Research in International Education, 3, 51-70.Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association (pgs. 13 -19). Newark, DE.Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC.References

Recommended

View more >