General Education Assessment Report Template

Academic Year: Choose an item.

2018-2019

Course Name/Catalog Number: First-Year Seminar/COE 103

General Education Component: First-Year Seminar

UULO(s) assessed this year:

☒ Intellectual Breadth/Life-long Learning

☒ Inquiry/Critical Thinking

☒ Communication

☒ Global/Multicultural Knowledge and Awareness

☒ Citizenship & Ethics

Other learning outcomes assessed this year: SLO 5: Writing

Process: Please provide a brief narrative of the assessment process for this course. Include a description

of the type of student work assessed (e.g., research papers, exams, etc.), the number and roles of people

involved in the process, any tools used for the assessment (e.g., checklists, rubrics, etc.), and how student

learning was evaluated.

The assessment process for this course included direct and indirect assessment of student learning. For the

direct assessment, student position papers (see Appendix 1) were randomly selected from fall 2018 COE

103 sections (N = 8). These papers were assessed by nine COE FYS/SYS instructors and one FYS/SYS

coordinator on March 29, 2019 using the AAC&U Written Communication VALUE rubric (see

Appendix 2). The instructors and coordinator normed the rubric, scored the samples, and debriefed about

initial thoughts about the assessment. The assessment was discussed again with instructors on May 3,

2019 and May 22, 2019. The data and averages for each section of the VALUE rubric are included in

Appendix 3.

The indirect assessment consisted of a Learning Outcomes Survey that was electronically distributed to

students in fall 2018 (57.9% response rate). Survey results are included in Appendix 4.

Results: Please provide a brief summary of the results of your assessment process. Include both what you

learned about your students’ achievement of the specified learning outcomes and what you learned about

the assessment process itself, if applicable.

The results of our direct assessment appeared to evidence students performing at a first-year

level for written communication (See Appendix 3). These results also evidenced a large

fluctuation of student writing ability in COE 103. Certain students wrote above a first-year level,

while others were clearly writing below a first-year level as specified by the VALUE rubric.

Similar to previous years, we found it extremely helpful to have FYS/SYS instructors participate

in this direct assessment. Our initial discussion in March after scoring student work samples and

our ongoing discussions in May were very fruitful for generating ideas and suggestions for

course and program revision to support written communication.

The results of our indirect assessment indicated that students perceived they improved

moderately to much on their progress on UULOs (Table 6, Appendix 4). These results also

indicated that students perceived a moderate to great amount of intellectual, personal, and

social growth (Table 5, Appendix 4), were somewhat to strongly satisfied with faculty respect for

students, their classroom instruction, and sense of belonging on campus (Table 4, Appendix 4).

In relation to the assessment process, like previous years, we confirmed that providing time

during class for students to take this assessment was helpful to secure a higher response rate

(57.9%). We will continue to encourage instructors to allow in-class time for this survey.

Conclusions: Please describe how the results of this assessment process might be used to revise

instruction in this course and/or refine the assessment process in future years.

The results of our direct assessment process and subsequent discussions and brainstorming

sessions with our FYS/SYS instructors led us to revise our position paper assignment rubric for

fall 2019. This revised rubric will provide additional scaffolding for students to support their

written communication with specific guidelines and grading criteria for each section of the

assignment (i.e., grading criteria for Less than Adequate, Adequate, and Exemplary writing for

each section). The FYS/SYS coordinator is working with the College of Education Coordinator of

Assessment to craft this rubric.

The results of our indirect assessment process indicated that our FYS program is thriving and our

students are learning the skills and knowledge necessary to promote academic success and

retention. One refinement to our indirect assessment process that we will implement in fall 2019

is the addition of a pre-post test focusing on our SLO’s. The FYS/SYS coordinator is working in

summer 2019 with the College of Education Coordinator of Assessment to create this pre-post

test. It is hoped that this additional indirect assessment of our SLO’s will enhance our

understanding of student learning and potentially guide future assessment efforts.

Appendices: Please attach any applicable assignment descriptions, rubrics, results tables, or graphic

representations of results.

Taking Sides Position Paper Instructions

(a) Position Paper (Final): You will write a 4-6 page formal position paper on the issue

examined in the Taking Sides text. Your position must be informed by the “Yes” and

“No” sides of this issue presented in this text.

1. You will submit a 2-3 page draft of your paper for in-class revision and feedback.

The content of your Final Paper will include the following:

1. An overall introduction to the issue. What exactly is the issue at hand? What is

your paper going to be about? What are we looking at here?

2. Your position on the issue. What is your position? Why do you take this

position? What information supports your position? Be sure to be clear about

your position. Go in-depth as to why you take it, and what is out there to support

it.

3. The opposing side of the issue. What does the other side say? What are the

objections to your position? How would someone who takes a different position

make their case? What information supports the opposing side?

4. The refutation of the opposing side. Why are the objections raised by the

opposing side incorrect and/or not persuasive? Why is the information supporting

the opposing side not persuasive in comparison to your own position?

5. Bring it back to your position and summarize it for the reader. Briefly state why

you still maintain your personal position, even though there are objections.

Your final paper will include these headings (corresponding with the grading rubric):

Introduction

My Position

Opposing Position

Refutation of Opposing Position

Position Summary

References

*Any and all information (e.g., idea, statement, fact, figure, etc.) that comes from a

source must be appropriately cited within the content of your paper and referenced in

either APA 6th edition or MLA formatting.

Appendix 2: VALUE Rubric

Appendix 3: Fall 2018 Direct Assessment Data and Averages

Paper Context Content Disciplinary Conventions

Sources Writing Mechanics

1NMS 1 0.75 0.25 1 1.25

1NVA 1.5 0.25 1.5 1.5 0.5

1AVG 1.25 0.5 0.875 1.25 0.875

2NMS 2 2 3 1 3

2DO 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2

2AVG 2.25 2.25 3.00 1.75 2.50

3MAS 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.50

3DAO 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

3AVG 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25

4AG 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

4AJ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

4DAO 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50

4II 1.86 2.00 1.70 1.20 1.70

4KMF 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 2.00

4LAK 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

4MAS 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50

4MS 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75

4NMS 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00

4NVA 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.75

4AVG 1.96 1.75 1.85 2.12 1.82

5MS 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3

5NMS 2.25 2.5 2.5 2.75 2

5AVG 2.13 2.50 2.50 2.63 2.50

6AG 1 1 0.75 1 1

6MS 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1

6AVG 1.00 0.75 0.63 0.75 1.00

7NMS 0.5 0.75 0.5 1 1

7DO 1 1 1 2 2

7AVG 0.75 0.88 0.75 1.50 1.50

8NMS 1.75 1 1.25 1 2

8DO 2 1.5 2 2 2

8AVG 1.88 1.25 1.63 1.50 2.00

9AG 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

9DAO 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00

9AVG 3.00 2.75 2.75 3.00 2.50

10AJ 3.75 4.00 3.75 3.00 3.50

10II 1.00 2.50 2.10 3.00 3.00

10AVG 2.38 3.25 2.93 3.00 3.25

11DAO 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

11NMS 2.00 1.00 0.50 1.25 0.50

11AVG 2.50 2.00 1.25 2.13 1.25

12AG 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.50

12AJ 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.50 3.20

12II 1.90 1.80 2.10 2.00 1.00

12KMF 2.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

12LAK 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

12MAS 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00

12MS 3.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00

12NMS 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.50

12NVA 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

12DAO 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

12AVG 2.44 2.28 2.21 2.40 2.17

13LAK 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

13NVA 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00

13AVG 1.38 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.50

14MAS 4.00 4.00 4.00

1.00

14MS 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75

14AVG 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.88

15KMF 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.50 1.50

15NMS 1.75 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00

15AVG 2.13 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75

16MAS 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50

16MS 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.75 1.00

16AVG 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.88 1.25

17MAS 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50

17MS 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00

17AVG 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50

18AG 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00

18AJ 2.75 3.25 3.00 3.25 3.00

18AVG 2.38 2.38 2.25 2.63 2.00

19AG 1.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 1.00

19KMF 3.50 2.50 3.50 1.50 1.00

19AVG 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.00

20AG 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

20LAK 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

20AVG 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.00

21KMF 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.50

21NVA 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.50

21AVG 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.75 2.50

22AG 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00

22KMF 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.50

22AVG 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25

23KMF 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.50 3.00

23MAS 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

23AVG 1.50 2.00 0.75 1.25 2.50

24AG 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.00

24LAK 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

24AVG 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.75 2.00

COE 103 Fall 2018 Averages

Paper Context Content Disciplinary Conventions

Sources Writing Mechanics

1AVG 1.25 0.5 0.875 1.25 0.875

2AVG 2.25 2.25 3.00 1.75 2.50

3AVG 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25

4AVG 1.96 1.75 1.85 2.12 1.82

5AVG 2.13 2.50 2.50 2.63 2.50

6AVG 1.00 0.75 0.63 0.75 1.00

7AVG 0.75 0.88 0.75 1.50 1.50

8AVG 1.88 1.25 1.63 1.50 2.00

COE 103 AVG 1.65 1.48 1.62 1.62 1.68

COE 202 Fall 2018 Averages

Paper Context Content Disciplinary Conventions

Sources Writing Mechanics

9AVG 3.00 2.75 2.75 3.00 2.50

10AVG 2.38 3.25 2.93 3.00 3.25

11AVG 2.50 2.00 1.25 2.13 1.25

12AVG 2.44 2.28 2.21 2.40 2.17

13AVG 1.38 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.50

14AVG 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.88

15AVG 2.13 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75

16AVG 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.88 1.25

17AVG 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50

18AVG 2.38 2.38 2.25 2.63 2.00

19AVG 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.00

20AVG 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.00

21AVG 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.75 2.50

22AVG 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25

23AVG 1.50 2.00 0.75 1.25 2.50

24AVG 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.75 2.00

COE 202 AVG 2.14 2.17 2.04 2.03 1.77

Appendix 4 Learning Outcomes Survey Report: Fall 2018

COE 103 Participation

Table 1. Responses to LOS by FYS Course – Fall 2018 Course # Sections Enrollment LOS Responses Response Rate

COE 103 9 197 114 57.9%

Total 101 3097 1581 51.0%

Responses

Colleges and Schools Table 2. LOS Responses by Course and College – Fall 2018

Acade

mic

Success

Cente

r E

ducatio

n

Fin

e A

rts

Lib

era

l A

rts

Urb

an

Affa

irs

Eng

ineerin

g

Busin

ess

Hote

l

Scie

nces

Alli

ed H

ealth

Scie

nces

Pub

lic

Health

Nurs

ing

Oth

er

Tota

l

COLA 100E 382 7 22 19 12 32 43 9 30 21 6 28 7 618

COE 103 3 73 6 14 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 7 3 114

CFA 100 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 28

COLA 100LA 2 1 3 31 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 4 2 49

GSC 100 2 0 1 1 85 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 96

EGG 101 2 0 0 3 1 163 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 174

BUS 103 4 0 2 1 0 0 71 1 0 0 0 0 0 79

TCA 103 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 24

SCI 101 22 1 1 5 2 5 5 0 199 5 5 15 0 265

HSC 100 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 51 4 72 2 134

Total 419 82 62 76 103 202 123 35 233 84 16 131 15 1581

Employment

Table 3. Weekly Hours of Employment by Course and Relation to Major – Fall 2018

Related to Major Number of Hours Spent Weekly in

Employment

Unrelated to Major None Part-time

(1 to 30 hrs) Full-time

(31+ hours)

COE 103 75.44% 21.05% 3.51%

44.25% 46.90% 8.85%

Total 80.62% 17.08% 2.29%

49.20% 43.08% 7.71%

Student Satisfaction

Table 4. Student Satisfaction by Course – Fall 2018

Overall Mean

Overall SD

COE 103 Mean

COE 103 SD

Class size 4.40 0.626 4.54 0.568

Availability of faculty for office appointments

4.40 0.705 4.48 0.778

Faculty respect for students 4.51 0.579 4.41 0.670

Quality of academic advising by advising centers

4.43 0.699 4.36 0.759

Quality of developmental, tutorial, and remedial services

4.32 0.661 4.35 0.763

UNLV in general 4.35 0.661 4.33 0.758

Diversity of faculty and staff 4.50 0.645 4.31 0.773

Quality of my program of study 4.33 0.672 4.26 0.799

Quality of instruction 4.29 0.645 4.24 0.649

Informal contact with faculty in non-academic settings

4.26 0.671 4.22 0.670

Concern for me as an individual 4.21 0.733 4.17 0.826

My sense of belonging on this campus 4.21 0.761 4.15 0.807

Flexible degree requirements 4.11 0.753 4.00 0.780

Availability of Courses 3.89 0.874 3.81 0.869

Note. 1 = N/A, 2 = Strongly Dissatisfied, 3 = Somewhat Dissatisfied, 4 = Somewhat Satisfied, 5 = Strongly Satisfied 1 (N/A) responses were not included in the calculation of the mean

UNLV Contributed to Personal Growth Table 5. Student Growth and Preparation by Course – Fall 2018

Overall Mean

Overall SD

COE 103 Mean

COE 103 SD

Intellectual growth 3.78 0.876 3.53 0.875

Personal growth 3.84 0.977 3.62 0.990

Social growth 3.62 1.077 3.49 1.062

Preparation for further study 3.82 0.911 3.71 0.951

Preparation for career 3.68 1.022 3.60 1.098

Note. 1 = None, 2 - Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Great, 5 = Very Great

First-Year Seminar and UULOs

Table 6. Student Progress on UULOs by Course – Fall 2018

Overall Mean

Overall SD

COE 103 Mean

COE 103 SD

Improve my inquiry and critical thinking skills

3.73 1.117 3.82 1.029

Improve my written communication skills

3.63 1.144 3.77 1.041

Improve my oral communication skills

3.57 1.173 3.72 1.067

Increase my global knowledge and awareness

3.78 1.112 3.78 1.079

Increase my multicultural knowledge and awareness

3.67 1.156 3.78 1.073

Increase my understanding of rights and responsibilities regarding citizenship

3.68 1.197 3.84 1.079

Increase my understanding of ethics

3.88 1.104 3.89 1.028

Note. 1 = None, 2 - Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Much, 5 = Very Much