Archived Assessment Report
| Program | RELG Humanities Gen Ed |
| Assessment Reporter | [email protected] |
| Theme | Practicing Community |
| Review Year | 2024-2025 - Final Report |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Focus Area |
|---|---|
| 1a. Critical Thinking: Problem Setting | Describe and explain how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility |
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | In Religious Literacy, Stephen Prothero writes, “religious literacy refers to the ability to understand and use in one’s day to day life, the basic building blocks of religious traditions–their key terms, symbols, doctrines, sayings, characters, metaphors, and narratives” (Prothero, 15. 2007). In your own words, in at least two detailed paragraphs, introduce the importance of religious literacy and how the academic study of religion contributes to it and benefits learners in academic, community, and professional settings and aides in intercultural understanding and competence. Consider how religious literacy promotes social responsibility in these settings. Please provide at least one specific example. |
| 3e. Personal and Social Responsibility: Civic discourse, civic knowledge and engagement – local and global | Describe and explain how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Description of Assessment Tool | Population or Courses Assessed | Hypothetical Analysis/Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. Critical Thinking: Problem Setting | Written Student responses to prompt | RELG 1110 102,105, 301, D01-D05 RELG 1120 D01, D02 RELG 2110 D01 RELG 2135 101 | Students should be able to describe and explain how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility drawing on examples from textbook and module readings as well as coursework, lectures, and assignments. Students who are assessed later in the semester should score higher on the three criteria. We will consider online vs F2F data. |
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | Two or more detailed paragraphs on the prompt above. | RELG 1110 102, 105, 301, D01-D05 RELG 2110 D01 RELG 1120 D01, D02 RELG 2135 101 | Students should be able to successfully describe and provide examples about the benefits of religious literacy in academic, community, and professional settings and aides in intercultural understanding and competence. Consider how religious literacy promotes social responsibility in these settings. Students assessed later in the term will most likely perform better. Data on online vs F2F students will be noted. |
| 3e. Personal and Social Responsibility: Civic discourse, civic knowledge and engagement – local and global | Written student responses to prompt | RELG 1110 102,105, 301, D01-D05 RELG 1120 D01, D02 RELG 2110 D01 RELG 2135 101 | Students should be able to describe and explain how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility drawing on examples from textbook and module readings as well as coursework, lectures, and assignments. Students who are assessed later in the semester should score higher on the three criteria. We will consider online vs F2F data. |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Summary of Results | Reflection on Focus Area | Intepretation of Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. Critical Thinking: Problem Setting | With two out of three RELG faculty collecting and reporting results, the majority of students in the online and in person sections, were scored 3/3 for this criteria. Most students were able to describe and many to explain with some precision and depth, how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility drawing on examples from textbook and module readings as well as coursework, lectures, and assignments. two sections were assessed in early February and the remaining in late April. The April assessments were stronger but not significantly so. Online and F2F sections were scored about the same. | The results support the general hypothesis that the later in the term the students were assessed on this prompt/concept the better they would be scored. Most were able to define and provide examples of religious literacy as a general concept/framework. | This shows us that we are generally successful in explaining the concept and offering students examples to choose from (from course material) and allowing them to formulate their own examples. The later in the term they are assessed on this concept, the scores are slightly better (more 3s, and 2s, fewer 1s on our scale). There is no significant distinction between DL and F2F courses. |
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | Most students could successfully provide specific examples of the benefit/use of the concept of religious literacy from at least one of the three settings (academic, community, professional). The prompt and tool did not differentiate if they could also note how it "aides in intercultural understanding and competence" so these were essentially measured together. The in person section assessed scored lower in this area than the DL sections. | Most students were able to successfully describe and provide examples about the benefits of religious literacy in academic, community, and professional settings. The second and third part of the prompt regarding how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and competence and how religious literacy promotes social responsibility in these settings was not measured separately. Students assessed later in the term performed slightly better. Online and F2F students were scored similarly. The results support the hypothesis. | The results demonstrate that most students were able to successfully describe and provide examples about the benefits of religious literacy in academic, community, and professional settings. Assessing students on their understanding of the concept of religious literacy and its connection to Personal and Social Responsibility was implicitly assessed but the tool could've measured this more precisely. |
| 3e. Personal and Social Responsibility: Civic discourse, civic knowledge and engagement – local and global | With two out of three RELG faculty collecting and reporting data, this third criteria ("Describe and explain how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility") was the most challenging for the greatest number of students assessed. However, most students were scored at a 3, many at 2 and therefore most able to write on this concept with some confidence and accuracy and provide some examples or ideas. Students assessed later in the term (April as opposed to February) were scored better on average across all sections. There was no significant distinction between F2F and DL students. | Even though this aspect of the prompt and assessment was generally more challenging for students, the results supported the hypothesis that students would score higher later in the semester. | Students were generally able to describe and explain how religious literacy aides in intercultural understanding and promotes social responsibility drawing on examples from textbook and module readings as well as coursework, lectures, and assignments. Students who are assessed later in the semester scored higher on this criteria in both F2F and DL courses. This area was most challenging for students with the greatest number of 1s (the lowest of the three scores on our tool rubric). It may that the concept of "social responsibility" was not clear to students and instructors needed to more explicitly make that connection in discussing and teaching the idea of religious literacy. |
| 1a. Critical Thinking: Problem Setting | |
|---|---|
| Describe the change that was implemented. | The department will discuss the results and ways in which to improve teaching and learning around the concept of religious literacy and any CNM required outcomes. This may involve shared resources on the topic. Instructors will also discuss how they arrived at the scores on the rubric so that we are more consistent moving forward. |
| Type of Change |
|
| Change in Assessment Approach or Tools? | The changes may require 1. a change in approach on the part of faculty (in delivering content related to this concept and these outcomes) and 2. in the tool for more precise measurement of outcomes. |
| What data motivated the change? | The first criteria was scored the strongest. The scores of the third criteria of our tool rubric have room for improvement, especially early in the term and in F2F courses. |
| Hypothesis about the effect the change will have? | The planned changes will help improve the outcomes by making sure that all instructors are able to express the essential need for an understanding and acceptance of the concept of religious literacy for Religious Studies students for their success in the course, in the discipline, and in achieving the outcomes outlined by CNM in these formal Assessments. Changes, derived from an examination of this data and a second look at the Assessment tool and rubric, will create some consistency between instructors and sections. |
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | |
|---|---|
| Describe the change that was implemented. | The department will discuss the results and ways in which to improve teaching and learning around the concept of religious literacy and any CNM required outcomes. This may involve shared resources on the topic. Instructors will also discuss how they arrived at the scores on the rubric so that we are more consistent moving forward. |
| Type of Change |
|
| Change in Assessment Approach or Tools? | The changes may require 1. a change in approach on the part of faculty (in delivering content related to this concept and these outcomes) and 2. in the tool for more precise measurement of outcomes. |
| What data motivated the change? | The second criteria was scored consistently across sections. |
| Hypothesis about the effect the change will have? | The planned changes will help improve the outcomes by making sure that all instructors are able to express the essential need for an understanding and acceptance of the concept of religious literacy for Religious Studies students for their success in the course, in the discipline, and in achieving the outcomes outlined by CNM in these formal Assessments. Changes, derived from an examination of this data and a second look at the Assessment tool and rubric, will create some consistency between instructors and sections. |
| 3e. Personal and Social Responsibility: Civic discourse, civic knowledge and engagement – local and global | |
|---|---|
| Describe the change that was implemented. | The third criteria, its measurement, and its connection the required CNM assessed outcomes, needs some further scrutiny. The department will discuss the results and ways in which to improve teaching and learning around the concept of religious literacy and its connection to intercultural understanding and personal responsibility. This may involve shared resources on the topic. Instructors will also discuss how they arrived at the scores on the rubric so that we are more consistent moving forward. |
| Type of Change |
|
| Change in Assessment Approach or Tools? | The changes may require 1. a change in approach on the part of faculty (in delivering content related to this concept and these outcomes) and 2. in the tool for more precise measurement of outcomes. |
| What data motivated the change? | The third criteria was most challenging for students based on the data. |
| Hypothesis about the effect the change will have? | The planned changes will help improve the outcomes by making sure that all instructors are able to express the essential need for an understanding and acceptance of the concept of religious literacy for Religious Studies students for their success in the course, in the discipline, and in achieving the outcomes outlined by CNM in these formal Assessments. Changes, derived from an examination of this data and a second look at the Assessment tool and rubric, will create some consistency between instructors and sections. |
| Learning Outcome (or Gen Ed Essential Skill) | Description of Assessment Tool | Population of Courses Assessed |
|---|---|---|
| 1a. Critical Thinking: Problem Setting | Not yet created | unsure |
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | not yet created | unsure |
| 3e. Personal and Social Responsibility: Civic discourse, civic knowledge and engagement – local and global | not yet created | unsure |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. Critical Thinking: Problem Setting | No additional data collected at this time | ||
| 3a. Personal and Social Responsibility: Intercultural reasoning and intercultural competence | No additional data collected at this time | ||
| 3e. Personal and Social Responsibility: Civic discourse, civic knowledge and engagement – local and global | No additional data collected at this time |
Describe any change in student achievement observed as part of this assessment process, and what led to those changes.
n/a
Describe long-term changes in the program(s) that the assessment process led to, and what motivated those changes?
This assessment process did not lead to any long term changes in the RELG program.
What did you learn about the teaching and learning of "Practicing Community" in your programs?
This assessment demonstrated that most of our Religious Studies students can articulate ways in which religious literacy contributes to the understanding and analyzing ideas of community.
Describe any external factors affecting the program or affecting assessment of the program.
Our first round of the Assessment was set up in Brightspace and the data was never pulled/collected so we have just one round of data. Not every class was assessed.