Archived Assessment Report
| Program | ARTH Creative Fine Arts Gen Ed |
| Assessment Reporter | [email protected] |
| Theme | Practicing Community |
| Review Year | 2024-2025 - Final Report |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Focus Area |
|---|---|
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | Do students struggle with intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence? |
| 3c. Personal and Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning | Do students struggle with ethical reasoning? |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Description of Assessment Tool | Population or Courses Assessed | Hypothetical Analysis/Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | Assignment: Virtual Museum Local Public Art Paper | ARTH 1110, ARTH 2110, ARTH 2120, ARTH 2130, ARTH 2140 | At least 80% of students are proficient in utilizing intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence. |
| 3c. Personal and Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning | Assignment: Virtual Museum Local Public Art Paper | ARTH 1110, ARTH 2110, ARTH 2120, ARTH 2130, ARTH 2140 | At least 80% of students are proficient in utilizing ethical reasoning. |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Summary of Results | Reflection on Focus Area | Intepretation of Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | Of the 204 samples 101 met the threshold for proficiency. This averages to 50% of students being proficient in utilizing intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence. | The results contradict the focus area question that 80% of students would be proficient in intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence. | Half of students struggle with evaluating personal and social justice issues as they relate to specific contexts and compare and contrast multiple solutions across social and cultural relationships. |
| 3c. Personal and Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning | Approximately 48% of students sampled were proficient in ethical reasoning. | Yes, students struggle with ethical reasoning. | Nearly half of students struggle in comparing a range of ethical perspectives and propose an ethical solution based on one or more of those perspectives. |
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | |
|---|---|
| Describe the change that was implemented. | Directly embed tutoring into participating LMS shells prior to assessment. Copy checklist with reminders on assignment components into participating LMS shells prior to assessment. |
| Type of Change |
|
| Change in Assessment Approach or Tools? | Yes, approach will focus more on determining student comprehension of outcome using tutor embed tool and checklist tool. |
| What data motivated the change? | Of 204 students sampled only 96 were proficient in this outcome. (Excludes ARTH 1116 as it is not GenEd). |
| Hypothesis about the effect the change will have? | Embedded checklist will allow us to see if students are truly struggling with outcome, or if they merely are selective in following the assessment prompts requirements. Tutoring support will assist students with writing and research components so that student focus can be more on outcome. |
| 3c. Personal and Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning | |
|---|---|
| Describe the change that was implemented. | Directly embed tutoring into participating LMS shells prior to assessment. Copy checklist with reminders on assignment components into participating LMS shells prior to assessment. |
| Type of Change |
|
| Change in Assessment Approach or Tools? | Yes, approach will focus more on determining student comprehension of outcome using tutor embed tool and checklist tool. |
| What data motivated the change? | Of 204 students sampled, only 93 were proficient in this outcome. |
| Hypothesis about the effect the change will have? | Embedded checklist will allow us to see if students are truly struggling with outcome, or if they merely are selective in following the assessment prompts requirements. Tutoring support will assist students with writing and research components so that student focus can be more on outcome. |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Description of Assessment Tool | Population of Courses Assessed |
|---|---|---|
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | Assignment: Virtual Museum Local Public Art Paper and scoring rubric. | ARTH 1110, ARTH 2110, ARTH 2120, ARTH 2130, ARTH 2140 |
| 3c. Personal and Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning | Assignment: Virtual Museum Local Public Art Paper and scoring rubric. | ARTH 1110, ARTH 2110, ARTH 2120, ARTH 2130, ARTH 2140 |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Summary of Second Round Results | Intepretation of Results, Pre- and Post-Change | Follow up questions, possible next steps |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | 51.63% of students assessed reached the proficiency threshold. Of the 247 students assessed proficiency was highest online with 102 of 162 meeting 80%. Of the 30 students in Fusion delivery 10 met the threshold and for face-to-face, of 55 student only 15 were proficient. | Will ask participating instructors to attend a norming session for how the rubric is being scored. Will seek to embed librarian rather than tutor for online sections. Why are fusion and face-to-face deliveries lower than online? | |
| 3c. Personal and Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning | 51.98% of students were proficient in the learning outcome. That is 131 students of 253 total. Online delivery had the greatest proficiency with 105 of 165 students assessed meeting the threshold. In Fusion delivery 13 or 33 were proficient and face-to-face of 55 students only 13 met the threshold. | Will check to see how students were receiving content by term's end for fusion delivery. Will also ask participating instructors to attend a norming session on scoring with the rubric. Will switch to librarian embed rather than tutor embed as this did not work for online. Was unauthorized use of generative AI possibly responsible for higher scores online than in other delivery methods? |
Describe any change in student achievement observed as part of this assessment process, and what led to those changes.
We saw improvement with online delivery modes for both learning outcomes. Reminder checklists and resource embeds may have improved these scores more so than with face-to-face and fusion offerings.
Describe long-term changes in the program(s) that the assessment process led to, and what motivated those changes?
No only minor changes with added checklists and embedded resources to Gen Ed courses.
What did you learn about the teaching and learning of "Practicing Community" in your programs?
With the learning outcomes of intercultural reasoning and competence and ethical reasoning from the Practicing Community universal theme, students examined art in specific historical contexts through a range of lens used in art criticism like feminist, gender studies, psychological, and critical race theory. Students evaluated art through range of ethical perspectives on personal and social justice issues ultimately proposing an ethical solution across social and cultural relationships.
Describe any external factors affecting the program or affecting assessment of the program.
Use of unauthorized generative AI by students has dramatically increased during this theme cycle making assessing learning outcomes challenging especially prior Turnitin adoption by the college.