Courses Selected: CIS105, HUMS 120, ART 176, PHYS 201, CPS 121, WEB 130, ACCT 215, CJ 108, PSYC 241, MKTG 201,
MATH 202, COMM 101
Methods: Three competencies comprising the Technology Literacy outcome were assessed through a short survey sent to instructors from selected courses. The competencies were Project Management, Creation, and Communication. Course instructors were sent a link to the online survey via email. In the survey, the instructors were asked to rate two of their students, whom had been randomly selected, on how well they utilized technology to complete an assignment. The technology referenced could encompass anything from a simple word processing program to an advanced application specific to the instructor’s discipline. The survey contained eight questions and was completed twice; once for each selected student. Students were rated on a scale from 1, “no proficiency”, to 5, “advanced proficiency”. There was also a “not applicable” option if the selected assignment could not be assessed on a particular criterion.
Results: Surveys were sent for 438 students, and surveys were completed for 204 students. The mean for Project Management was 4.24 out of 5. The mean for Creation was 4.16, and the mean for Communication was 4.24.
Based on the results of the assessment, several further actions were planned. For example, the College Wide Assessment Committee proposed the need to explore the definition of technology literacy college-wide, and the proficiency expectations for college graduates. The committee also proposed possible disparate definitions for proficiency of basic technology literacy and program specific technology literacy. Increased availability of technology on campus, including opportunities for creative technology use and insurance of ADA compliant technology, was suggested as a strategy to increase technology literacy amongst students. [Technology Literacy results table] pdf
Courses Selected: ENGL 101, ENGL 106, MATH 113, MATH 114, ART 181, ART 182, BIOL 103, HIST 101, HUM 101, PSYC 209,
HLTH 101, MGMT 201
Methods: The four competencies that make up the Written Communication outcome were assessed through the collection of artifacts from selected courses. The components were Ideas/Engagement with Topic, Thesis/Focus,Structure/Organization, and Mechanics. Instructors for the selected courses were sent an email notice to send in papers written by students for assessment. Two students were randomly selected from each class, except for ENGL101, from which only one student was selected per class because this course runs a large number of classes each semester. All submitted papers were anonymized and uploaded into the Tk20 assessment program. The sample was split into two groups based upon students’ accumulated credits. One group included students with zero to 30 credits, and the other included students with more than 30 accumulated credits. Six volunteer assessors from the College-Wide Assessment Committee each read a random sample of artifacts and assessed the musing a common rubric. The rubric rated students on the four components on a scale of 0, “no proficiency”, to 4,“advanced proficiency”. There was also a “not applicable” option if the selected artifact could not be assessed on that particular criterion.
Results: Artifacts were requested from 492 students. Artifacts were collected from 214 students. Fifty-four students either did not turn in the assignment or were reported as having dropped the course. The mean for Ideas/Engagement was 2.64. The mean for Thesis/Focus was 2.33. The mean for Structure/Organization was 2.58. The mean for Mechanics was 2.52. Significant differences were found between the student groups earning 0-30 credits and over 30 credits for all four criteria. For each criterion, students earning over 30 credits had higher mean scores (Ideas/Engagement t(326.33)=-7.37, p<.001; Thesis/Focus t(298.47)=-6.17,p<.001; Structure/Organization t(315.63)=-6.59, p<.001; Mechanics t(391)=-4.69,p<.001). [Written Communication results table] pdf