Drake Curriculum Analysis Committee

Update December 2012

Drake Curriculum Analysis Committee

• Lots to do– Work with the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment to

• develop a rolling plan for assessment …• evaluate the data for evidence of student learning and make

recommendations for program improvement…• evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment instruments and procedures …

– Encourage participation by faculty, staff, and students in assessment– Report assessment results on a regular basis…– Consult with the Associate Provost for Curriculum and Assessment

regarding faculty and staff development programs …– Liaise with the colleges and schools to share general education and

program assessment data …

Drake Curriculum Analysis Committee

• Goals for the year: long-term view– Develop working precepts-shared vision– Taking inventory of assessment thus far– Create key components of an assessment plan– Transition to the ‘review and recommending’ body

• Large task– Measurement with intent to improve

Drake Curriculum Analysis Committee

• Develop working precepts– Timeline of AOI review– Multiple methods of investigation• Direct, rubrics, embedded assessments; • Indirect; self-assessments, • Quantitative and qualitative; curricular and co-

curricular; meaningful to faculty; • Focus on program evaluation

– What process can be repeated across AOIs?

Drake Curriculum Analysis Committee

• Inventory– What existing data do we have? How might that

data support the plan (e.g., NSSE, Drake Survey, CLA)

– Other Campus work• Critical Thinking• Information Literacy

– What data is missing?• How will information be shared• How to garner collaboration with faculty

Determine Actions

• Faculty Senate• University

Curriculum Committee

• Associate Provost

Report Results &

Recommen-dations

• DCAC• Faculty Senate

Evaluate Evidence

• DCAC

Collect Evidence

• Institutional Research and Assessment

Develop Assessment

Plan

• DCAC (In consultation with Associate Provost and Institutional Research and Assessment)

Assessment Implementation

% of FYS Papers Receiving a Median Rating of “Less than satisfactory”

Question/Claim Evidence Organization Assumptions Communications0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

201020082007

Select results from Drake 2010-2011 Collegiate Learning Assessment

Number of

Freshmen

Mean Score

Percentile Rank

NumberOf

Seniors

Mean Score

PercentileRank

Total CLA Score 62 82 69 62

Performance Task 33 86 37 69

Analytic Writing Task 29 69 32 57

Make-an-Argument 33 52 33 48

Critique-an-Argument 29 80 32 66

CT Closing The Loop

– May 2012 workshop (Robertson & Roth)• Support needed to promote Critical Thinking• Assignment design• Struggle with assumptions/alternatives

– CT Faculty working group (6 faculty, 4 schools/colleges)• Strategies for sharing results and best practices• Recommendations for engaging wider audience