general education assessment (gea) task...
TRANSCRIPT
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT (GEA) TASK FORCE
END OF YEAR REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
APRIL 29, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEA Task Force Members 2008 ................................................... 3
GEA Task Force Charge and Goals ............................................. 4
Definitions: Student Learning Outcomes
Communication .................................................................. 5
Information Literacy ........................................................... 6
Critical Thinking ................................................................. 7
Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning ............................. 8
Global Sociocultural Responsibility ................................. 9
Communications Rubrics:
Reception .......................................................................... 11
Oral Content ..................................................................... 15
Oral Delivery ..................................................................... 17
Written............................................................................... 19
GEA Task Force Action Plan for 2008-2009 .............................. 21
GEA Task Force To Do List ........................................................ 23
GEA Task Force Recommendations ......................................... 24
GEA Task Force Members 2009 ................................................. 28
GEA Pilot – MAPP Test Abbreviated Form ............................... 29
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
2008
FACULTY
Tessie Bond, GER Committee Chair, KC
David Bowen, Faculty Senate President, Humanities, SC
Sheri Brown, Librarian, DTC
Youlanda Henry, Communications, NC
Patty Lee, GER Committee Co-Chair, NC
Matt Mitchell, Mathematics, DTC
Lourdes Norman, Science, KC
Joel Rappoport, Mathematics, SC
Wayne Singletary, Workforce, KC
John Wall, Social and Behavioral Sciences, SC
ADMINISTRATION
Maggie Cabral-Maly, Kent Campus President
Lynne Crosby, Director of Program Development, Liberal Arts and Sciences
Julie Giuliani, Executive Dean of the Virtual College
Mike Reynolds, Associate Dean, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, KC
Jim Simpson, AVP for Workforce Development and Adult Education
Charles Smires, Dean of Liberal Arts, SC
Karen Stearns, Research Analyst
Jennifer Stoetzer, Task Force Assistant
Nancy Yurko, AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences
CO-CHAIRS: Tessie Bond, Faculty Chair
Nancy Yurko, Administrative Chair
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 3
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
CHARGE AND GOALS
The Florida Department of Education has recommended that post-secondary institutions collect
information regarding the efficacy of their respective general education programs. In addition, the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) requires that member institutions assess
their general education program. The methodology used to collect this data has not been dictated
by the Florida Department of Education or the state legislature. Thus, the Learning Outcomes
Assessment (LOA) Task Force, renamed the General Education Assessment (GEA) Task Force,
was assembled by the General Education Requirements (GER) Subcommittee of the College
Curriculum Committee in order to achieve the following:
GOAL
This task force will facilitate the development of a college-wide, faculty-driven, general education
outcomes assessment process to improve what we value as educators and as a college body,
namely the mentoring and education of our students so that they can achieve their personal and
professional goals. The task force suggests that the final assessment program should be
multifaceted in its design to reflect the rich diversity of our faculty and students. Furthermore, the
data collected from this assessment endeavor will be used to enhance FCCJ’s general education
outcomes. The GEA Task Force’s recommendations will be presented to the faculty for feedback,
input and development, and to the GER Sub-Committee for further discussion and approval prior to
final submission to the College Curriculum Committee.
TASKS
The Task Force will serve as:
1. A conduit for information concerning current best practices in general education
assessment.
2. A facilitator for the collection and implementation of faculty driven ideas regarding strategies
for a college-wide assessment plan.
3. A support for the preliminary collection and analysis of assessment data. In particular, the
task force will sponsor faculty discussions to cooperatively develop and test-pilot a general
education assessment strategy that targets one of the five specific general education
learning outcomes that have been identified by the State.
4. The task force will work with the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning to
provide faculty with professional development opportunities related to learning outcomes
assessment.
The five general education learning outcomes identified by the Statewide Student Learning
Outcomes Task Force are: communication skills, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical
thinking, information literacy, and global socio-cultural responsibility. Since each of the five general
education skills is founded in the ability to effectively communicate, the members of the FCCJ
General Education Assessment Task Force unanimously agreed that this general education
outcome would be a logical place to begin.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 4
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
COMMUNICATION LEARNING OUTCOME
DEFINITION
Effective communication is defined as an individual’s ability to choose the appropriate
means for obtaining, generating and using information and language to interact
successfully in the world. To be an effective communicator one must possess the ability to:
receive, comprehend, synthesize and integrate information through reading,
listening, and observation, and
transmit and exchange such information through the appropriate means of
expression including writing and speaking.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 5
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
INFORMATION LITERACY LEARNING OUTCOME
DEFINITION
Information literacy is defined as an individual’s ability to find, retrieve, analyze and use information. Being information literate requires the ability to:
identify the need for information,
select the most appropriate information retrieval system,
acquire pertinent information,
evaluate the information obtained,
manipulate information in a usable form, and
communicate the information appropriately.
Modified from the definition provided by the Association of College and Research Libraries.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 6
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
CRITICAL THINKING LEARNING OUTCOME
DEFINITION
Critical thinking is defined as an individual’s ability to apply logic, effective reasoning skills,
sound judgment and reflection in order to solve problems and to clarify the individual’s
objective understanding of the world.
An effective critical thinker is able to:
analyze and classify information,
compare and contrast,
establish appropriate hypotheses,
recognize assumptions and biases,
apply deductive and inductive reasoning to problem solve, and
synthesize, evaluate and reflect upon the information gathered.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 7
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
SCIENTIFIC AND QUANTITATIVE REASONING
DEFINITION
Scientific Reasoning is the interpretation of measurable, observable, or empirical
information through inference, analogy and induction to direct the formulation of
hypotheses and conclusions.
Specifically, scientific reasoning includes the ability to:
identify a scientific problem,
recognize and generate hypotheses,
identify relevant experimental variables,
make logical deductions using empirical or observed evidence,
distinguish between causal and correlation relationships,
distinguish between scientific and non-scientific arguments,
weigh and assess the quality of scientific information,
derive generalizations from data, and
use generalizations to make predictions.
Quantitative reasoning is the ability to understand and communicate mathematical
information. Specifically, quantitative reasoning includes the ability to:
interpret and make inferences from information presented in formulas, tables,
graphs and charts,
represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically and verbally,
use arithmetical, algebraic, geometric and statistical methods to solve problems,
recognize appropriate and inappropriate applications of mathematical and statistical
models,
estimate and check/consider the reasonableness of numerical results,
use appropriate technology in the evaluation, analysis and synthesis of information
in problem-solving situations, and
evaluate information, make logical deductions and arrive at reasonable conclusions.
Modified from guidelines proposed by the Mathematical Association of America.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 8
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
GLOBAL SOCIOCULTURAL RESPONSIBILITY
DEFINITION
Global Sociocultural Responsibility is defined as the way of recognizing and responding to
different ethnic and cultural groups by analyzing from multiple perspectives the means by
which each group serves a global community that contributes to local, national, and
environmental events and concerns of humanity.
An individual who is globally and socio-culturally informed and responsible has the ability
to:
comprehend the historical, political, social, economic and cultural influences on the
development of societies,
demonstrate an understanding of diversity within economic, social, cultural, civil and
political infrastructure and its underlying value systems,
acknowledge the wide range of differences among individuals and the diversity
among socioeconomic and global communities,
recognize the effect of historical and current perceptions, assumptions, and beliefs
on individuals and groups,
recognize the value of contributing to the welfare of the community, and
understand the impact of individuals and groups on the local and global community.
Some outcomes were adapted from Central Florida Community College and Seminole
Community College.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 9
This page is intentionally blank.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 10
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
LIST
ENIN
G C
OM
PR
EHEN
SIO
NTh
e ab
ility
to
in
terp
ret,
eval
uat
e, a
nd
rea
ct t
o
som
eth
ing
that
is h
eard
The
stu
den
t is
un
awar
e o
f b
asic
info
rmat
ion
ab
ou
t w
hat
was
com
mu
nic
ated
. He
or
she
has
no
t
rece
ived
th
e in
form
atio
n n
eed
ed. T
he
stu
den
t kn
ow
s so
met
hin
g im
po
rtan
t w
as
com
mu
nic
ated
, bu
t d
oes
no
t kn
ow
ho
w
to r
esp
on
d t
o it
. , T
he
stu
den
t m
ay a
sk
som
e b
asic
qu
esti
on
s ab
ou
t th
e to
pic
dis
cuss
ed.
The
stu
den
t ei
ther
dem
on
stra
tes
no
res
po
nse
or
resp
on
ds
com
ple
tely
off
to
pic
. Th
e st
ud
ent
may
no
t b
e ab
le t
o a
nsw
er o
r m
ay r
efu
se t
o
answ
er q
ues
tio
ns
abo
ut
wh
at w
as
com
mu
nic
ated
, an
d m
ay n
ot
be
able
to
app
rop
riat
ely
con
trib
ute
to
a d
iscu
ssio
n.
The
stu
den
t in
accu
rate
ly r
epea
ts w
hat
was
co
mm
un
icat
ed. T
he
stu
den
t m
ay
resp
on
d t
o w
hat
was
co
mm
un
icat
ed, b
ut
dem
on
stra
tes
no
co
mp
reh
ensi
on
of
the
com
mu
nic
atio
n. T
he
stu
den
t ca
n r
epea
t
som
e lit
eral
par
ts o
f w
hat
was
com
mu
nic
ated
bu
t n
ot
all b
ecau
se t
he
stu
den
t d
oes
no
t u
nd
erst
and
th
e en
tire
mea
nin
g o
f w
hat
was
co
mm
un
icat
ed.
In
the
clas
sro
om
, fo
r ex
amp
le, t
he
stu
den
t
kno
ws
a w
ritt
en o
r o
ral r
esp
on
se a
bo
ut
a
cert
ain
to
pic
is
bei
ng
req
ues
ted
, b
ut
do
es n
ot
un
der
stan
d w
hat
res
po
nse
sho
uld
be
mad
e.
The
stu
den
t ca
n v
agu
ely
sum
mar
ize
mai
n
idea
s o
f w
hat
was
co
mm
un
icat
ed. T
hey
are
gen
eral
ly a
war
e o
f th
e m
ain
mes
sage
s b
ut
they
are
un
able
to
com
ple
tely
co
mp
reh
end
th
e m
ean
ing
of
the
con
veye
d m
essa
ge. T
he
stu
den
t m
ay
exp
lain
th
e lit
eral
mea
nin
g o
f th
e
com
mu
nic
ated
info
rmat
ion
, bu
t th
ey
dem
on
stra
te li
mit
ed a
war
enes
s as
to
th
e
sco
pe
of
wh
at w
as c
om
mu
nic
ated
.
The
stu
den
t ca
n a
ccu
rate
ly s
um
mar
ize
the
mai
n id
eas
and
imp
licat
ion
s o
f w
hat
was
co
mm
un
icat
ed.
The
stu
den
t ca
n
accu
rate
ly a
pp
ly o
r d
emo
nst
rate
th
e
inte
nt
of
the
wri
tten
or
ora
l mes
sage
. O
r
if t
he
stu
den
t is
sti
ll u
nsu
re a
s h
ow
to
app
ly o
r d
emo
nst
rate
th
at i
nte
nt,
th
e
stu
den
t ca
n a
sk p
rob
ing
qu
esti
on
s o
r
rest
ate
wh
at w
as c
om
mu
nic
ated
in o
rder
to c
lari
fy h
is o
r h
er u
nd
erst
and
ing,
ind
icat
ing
a re
adin
ess
to r
esp
on
d
app
rop
riat
ely.
FLO
RID
A C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EGE
AT
JAC
KSO
NV
ILLE
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N -
REC
EPTI
ON
(G
EA R
ub
ric
Gro
up
Le
ade
rs -
Lo
urd
es
No
rman
& M
att
Mit
chel
l)
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F
EFFE
CTI
VE
REC
EPTI
ON
OF
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
rev
ised
4/2
3/2
008
1 o
f 3
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 11
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F
EFFE
CTI
VE
REC
EPTI
ON
OF
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
NR
EAD
ING
CO
MP
REH
ENSI
ON M
ain
Idea
, Det
ails
an
d P
atte
rns
of
Org
aniz
atio
n:
Has
dif
ficu
lty
det
erm
inin
g
and
des
crib
ing
the
mai
n id
ea o
f a
pas
sage
an
d n
egle
cts
and
/or
inac
cura
tely
iden
tifi
es t
he
mo
st im
po
rtan
t d
etai
ls t
hat
rela
te t
o t
he
top
ic.
Mai
n Id
ea, D
etai
ls a
nd
Pat
tern
s o
f
Org
aniz
atio
n:
Can
det
erm
ine
and
des
crib
e th
e m
ain
idea
of
a p
assa
ge a
nd
can
iden
tify
a li
mit
ed n
um
ber
of
imp
ort
ant
det
ails
th
at r
elat
e to
th
e to
pic
Mai
n Id
ea, D
etai
ls a
nd
Pat
tern
s o
f
Org
aniz
atio
n:
Can
co
rrec
tly
det
erm
ine
and
des
crib
e th
e m
ain
idea
of
a p
assa
ge
and
can
iden
tify
so
me
of
the
mo
st
imp
ort
ant
det
ails
th
at r
elat
e to
th
e to
pic
.
Mai
n Id
ea, D
etai
ls a
nd
Pat
tern
s o
f
Org
aniz
atio
n:
Can
co
rrec
tly
det
erm
ine,
des
crib
e an
d a
nal
yze
the
mai
n id
ea o
f a
pas
sage
an
d t
hey
can
iden
tify
a m
ajo
rity
of
the
mo
st im
po
rtan
t d
etai
ls t
hat
rel
ate
to t
he
top
ic.
Elem
ents
of
Nar
rati
ve:
Has
dif
ficu
lty
reco
gniz
ing
and
exp
lain
ing
man
y o
f th
e
elem
ents
of
a w
ritt
en w
ork
su
ch a
s p
lot,
sett
ing,
ch
arac
ter,
po
int
of
view
, to
ne
and
th
eme.
May
be
un
fam
iliar
wit
h t
he
term
s.
Elem
ents
of
Nar
rati
ve:
Can
rec
ogn
ize
and
exp
lain
a li
mit
ed n
um
ber
of
the
elem
ents
of
a w
ritt
en w
ork
su
ch a
s p
lot,
set
tin
g,
char
acte
r, p
oin
t o
f vi
ew, t
on
e an
d
them
e.
Elem
ents
of
Nar
rati
ve:
Can
rec
ogn
ize
and
exp
lain
man
y o
f th
e el
emen
ts o
f a
wri
tten
wo
rk s
uch
as
plo
t, s
etti
ng,
char
acte
r, p
oin
t o
f vi
ew, t
on
e an
d
them
e.
Elem
ents
of
Nar
rati
ve:
Can
rec
ogn
ize,
exp
lain
an
d a
nal
yze
mo
st o
f th
e
elem
ents
of
a w
ritt
en w
ork
su
ch a
s p
lot,
sett
ing,
ch
arac
ter,
po
int
of
view
, to
ne
and
th
eme.
Co
mp
arin
g an
d C
on
tras
tin
g Te
xt
Elem
ents
: Is
un
able
to
det
erm
ine
ho
w
elem
ents
wit
hin
a t
ext
are
sim
ilar
and
/or
dif
fere
nt.
Co
mp
arin
g an
d C
on
tras
tin
g Te
xt
Elem
ents
: Is
ab
le t
o d
eter
min
e h
ow
on
e
or
two
ele
men
ts w
ith
in a
tex
t ar
e si
mila
r
and
/or
dif
fere
nt.
Co
mp
arin
g an
d C
on
tras
tin
g Te
xt
Elem
ents
: Is
usu
ally
ab
le t
o d
eter
min
e
ho
w e
lem
ents
wit
hin
a t
ext
are
sim
ilar
and
/or
dif
fere
nt.
Co
mp
arin
g an
d C
on
tras
tin
g Te
xt
Elem
ents
: C
an c
on
sist
entl
y d
eter
min
e
ho
w e
lem
ents
wit
hin
a t
ext
are
sim
ilar
and
/or
dif
fere
nt.
Rec
ogn
izin
g C
ause
an
d E
ffec
t
Rel
atio
nsh
ips:
Can
iden
tify
a li
mit
ed
nu
mb
er o
f th
e th
ings
th
at h
app
en w
ith
in
a te
xt. M
ay g
ive
inac
cura
te e
xpla
nat
ion
s
ho
w/w
hy
thes
e th
ings
hav
e h
app
ened
.
Rec
ogn
izin
g C
ause
an
d E
ffec
t
Rel
atio
nsh
ips:
Can
iden
tify
so
me
of
the
thin
gs t
hat
hap
pen
wit
hin
a t
ext.
Can
give
exp
lan
atio
ns
for
ho
w/w
hy
som
e o
f
the
thin
gs h
ave
hap
pen
ed.
Rec
ogn
izin
g C
ause
an
d E
ffec
t
Rel
atio
nsh
ips:
Can
iden
tify
so
me
of
the
thin
gs t
hat
hap
pen
wit
hin
a t
ext
and
can
exp
lain
ho
w/w
hy
thes
e th
ings
hav
e
hap
pen
ed.
Rec
ogn
izin
g C
ause
an
d E
ffec
t
Rel
atio
nsh
ips:
Can
iden
tify
mo
st o
f th
e
thin
gs t
hat
hap
pen
wit
hin
a t
ext
and
th
ey
can
exp
lain
ho
w/w
hy
thes
e th
ings
hav
e
hap
pen
ed.
Gat
her
ing,
An
alyz
ing,
an
d E
valu
atin
g
Info
rmat
ion
fro
m D
iffe
ren
t So
urc
es:
con
sid
ers
and
an
alyz
es t
he
info
rmat
ion
fro
m o
ne
or
two
so
urc
es.
Un
able
to
det
erm
ine
ho
w t
he
vari
ou
s so
urc
es a
re
inte
rrel
ated
. Has
dif
ficu
lty
eval
uat
ing
qu
alit
y o
f th
e so
urc
e.
Gat
her
ing,
An
alyz
ing,
an
d E
valu
atin
g
Info
rmat
ion
fro
m D
iffe
ren
t So
urc
es:
Can
anal
yze
the
info
rmat
ion
fro
m a
lim
ited
nu
mb
er o
f so
urc
es. M
ay h
ave
dif
ficu
lty
det
erm
inin
g h
ow
th
e va
rio
us
sou
rces
are
inte
rrel
ated
. Has
dif
ficu
lty
eval
uat
ing
qu
alit
y o
f th
e so
urc
e.
Gat
her
ing,
An
alyz
ing,
an
d E
valu
atin
g
Info
rmat
ion
fro
m D
iffe
ren
t So
urc
es:
Can
con
sid
er a
nd
an
alyz
e th
e in
form
atio
n
they
rea
d f
rom
a n
um
ber
of
sou
rces
an
d
they
gen
eral
ly a
re a
ble
to
det
erm
ine
ho
w
the
vari
ou
s so
urc
es a
re in
terr
elat
ed. A
leve
l 3 r
ead
er m
ay n
ot
be
able
to
jud
ge
the
rela
tive
qu
alit
y o
f w
hat
was
rea
d.
Gat
her
ing,
An
alyz
ing,
an
d E
valu
atin
g
Info
rmat
ion
fro
m D
iffe
ren
t So
urc
es:
Can
con
sid
er a
nd
an
alyz
e th
e in
form
atio
n
read
fro
m a
nu
mb
er o
f so
urc
es a
nd
are
con
sist
entl
y ab
le t
o d
eter
min
e h
ow
th
e
vari
ou
s so
urc
es a
re in
terr
elat
ed. T
he
read
er w
ill b
e ab
le t
o ju
dge
th
e re
lati
ve
qu
alit
y o
f w
hat
th
ey r
ead
.
Syn
thes
izin
g In
form
atio
n a
nd
Dra
win
g
Co
ncl
usi
on
s: T
he
read
er is
un
able
to
eval
uat
e in
form
atio
n p
rese
nte
d w
ith
in
the
con
text
of
a te
xt, o
r m
ult
iple
tex
ts.
Has
dif
ficu
lty
eval
uat
ing
the
info
rmat
ion
and
mak
ing
pre
dic
tio
ns.
Syn
thes
izin
g In
form
atio
n a
nd
Dra
win
g
Co
ncl
usi
on
s: C
an e
valu
ate
a lim
ited
amo
un
t o
f in
form
atio
n p
rese
nte
d w
ith
in
the
con
text
of
a te
xt, o
r m
ult
iple
tex
ts.
Can
use
th
e in
form
atio
n t
o m
ake
pre
dic
tio
ns
wh
ich
may
no
t b
e ac
cura
te.
Syn
thes
izin
g In
form
atio
n a
nd
Dra
win
g
Co
ncl
usi
on
s: T
he
read
er c
an g
ener
ally
(alt
ho
ugh
no
t co
nsi
sten
tly)
ab
le t
o
eval
uat
e in
form
atio
n p
rese
nte
d w
ith
in
the
con
text
of
a te
xt, o
r m
ult
iple
tex
ts,
and
th
en e
valu
ate
the
info
rmat
ion
in
ord
er t
o m
ake
reas
on
able
pre
dic
tio
ns.
Syn
thes
izin
g In
form
atio
n a
nd
Dra
win
g
Co
ncl
usi
on
s: C
an c
on
sist
entl
y ab
le t
o
eval
uat
e in
form
atio
n p
rese
nte
d w
ith
in
the
con
text
of
a te
xt, o
r m
ult
iple
tex
ts,
and
th
en e
valu
ate
the
info
rmat
ion
in
ord
er t
o m
ake
reas
on
able
pre
dic
tio
ns.
The
abili
ty t
o i
nte
rpre
t,
eval
uat
e, a
nd
rea
ct t
o
som
eth
ing
that
is r
ead
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
rev
ised
4/2
3/2
008
2 o
f 3
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 12
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F
EFFE
CTI
VE
REC
EPTI
ON
OF
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
NV
ISU
AL,
SP
ATI
AL
AN
D
GR
AP
HIC
AL
CO
MP
REH
ENSI
ON
The
abili
ty t
o i
nte
rpre
t,
eval
uat
e, a
nd
rea
ct t
o
som
eth
ing
that
is
ob
serv
ed a
nd
/or
exp
erie
nce
d
The
stu
den
t is
ab
le t
o e
xplo
re a
nd
iden
tify
ob
ject
s in
th
e re
ceiv
ed d
ata
ho
wev
er t
hey
eit
her
do
no
t in
terp
ret
or
mis
inte
rpre
ts t
he
dat
a co
nve
yed
by
the
visu
al o
bje
ct/o
r th
e o
bse
rved
sce
nar
io.
The
stu
den
t is
un
able
to
mak
e
con
nec
tio
ns
to o
ther
info
rmat
ion
. Th
e
stu
den
t ca
nn
ot
asse
ss/j
ud
ge q
ual
ity
of
the
info
rmat
ion
co
nve
yed
.
The
stu
den
t is
ab
le t
o h
ypo
thes
ize
abo
ut
the
rece
ived
dat
a. T
he
stu
den
t ca
n
answ
er b
asic
qu
esti
on
s ab
ou
t th
e
dat
a/in
form
atio
n c
on
veye
d b
y th
e vi
sual
rep
rese
nta
tio
n o
r o
bse
rved
sce
nar
io .
The
stu
den
t m
ay m
ake
som
e si
mp
le
con
nec
tio
ns
to o
ther
info
rmat
ion
. Th
e
stu
den
t ca
n m
ake
som
e, p
erh
aps
inac
cura
te, p
red
icti
on
/ ge
ner
aliz
atio
ns
bas
ed o
n in
form
atio
n f
rom
an
ob
serv
able
rep
rese
nta
tio
n (
i.e. a
gra
ph
,
imag
e, s
cen
ario
, etc
.).
The
stu
den
t m
ay
be
able
to
ass
ess
qu
alit
y o
f th
e
info
rmat
ion
pre
sen
ted
in t
he
grap
h.
The
stu
den
t is
ab
le t
o m
anip
ula
te t
he
visu
ally
rec
eive
d d
ata.
Th
ey c
an a
nsw
er
mo
st/a
ll q
ues
tio
ns
abo
ut
the
dat
a/in
form
atio
n c
on
veye
d b
y th
e
ob
serv
able
dat
a. T
hey
can
use
th
e
info
rmat
ion
to
mak
e so
me
con
nec
tio
ns
wit
h o
ther
info
rmat
ion
. Th
e st
ud
ent
can
mak
e so
me
accu
rate
gen
eral
izat
ion
s
and
/or
pre
dic
tio
ns
bas
ed o
n t
he
dat
a.
They
can
co
nsi
sten
tly
mak
e ac
cura
te
asse
ssm
ents
of
the
qu
alit
y o
f d
ata.
Stu
den
ts a
re a
ble
to
pro
du
ce d
ata
sim
ilar
to t
he
rece
ived
dat
a. T
hey
sh
ow
a
tho
rou
gh u
nd
erst
and
ing
of
the
info
rmat
ion
in t
he
visu
ally
rep
rese
nte
d
mat
eria
l (i.e
. gra
ph
, im
age
or
ob
serv
ed
pro
cess
/sce
nar
io).
Th
ey c
an c
on
sist
entl
y
mak
e co
nn
ecti
on
s w
ith
oth
er
info
rmat
ion
. Th
e st
ud
ent
can
ext
end
idea
s p
rese
nte
d a
nd
can
co
nsi
sten
tly
mak
e ac
cura
te g
ener
aliz
atio
ns,
pre
dic
tio
ns,
jud
gmen
ts b
ased
on
th
e
dat
a. T
hey
co
nsi
sten
tly
mak
e ju
dgm
ents
abo
ut
the
qu
alit
y o
f th
e d
ata.
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
rev
ised
4/2
3/2
008
3 o
f 3
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 13
This
pag
e is
inte
nti
on
ally
bla
nk.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 14
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
NC
on
nec
ts w
ith
an
d e
nga
ges
the
aud
ien
ce
Esta
blis
hes
th
esis
Esta
blis
hes
cre
dib
ility
No
att
enti
on
-gra
bb
ing
stra
tegy
is e
mp
loye
d.
Rel
evan
ce o
f th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
’s t
op
ic a
nd
pu
rpo
se is
no
t ap
par
ent.
Thes
is s
tate
men
t is
mis
sin
g o
r
un
clea
r.
Pu
rpo
se a
nd
mai
n id
ea o
f th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
are
no
t
con
veye
d.
Cre
dib
ility
is n
ot
esta
blis
hed
by
the
spea
ker.
Att
enti
on
-gra
bb
ing
dev
ice
is
use
d b
ut
do
es n
ot
adeq
uat
ely
cap
ture
th
e au
die
nce
’s
inte
rest
.
Rel
evan
ce o
f th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
’s t
op
ic a
nd
pu
rpo
se is
imp
lied
bu
t n
ot
exp
licit
ly e
xpre
ssed
.
Thes
is is
imp
lied
bu
t n
ot
clea
rly
stat
ed.
Mai
n p
oin
ts o
f th
e th
esis
are
no
t p
revi
ewed
.
Cre
dib
ility
is i
mp
lied
bu
t n
ot
esta
blis
hed
by
the
spea
ker.
Effe
ctiv
e st
rate
gy is
use
d t
o
cap
tiva
te a
ud
ien
ce’s
att
enti
on
.
Rel
evan
ce o
f th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
’s t
op
ic a
nd
pu
rpo
se is
est
ablis
hed
.
Thes
is is
exp
licit
ly s
tate
d.
Top
ic is
iden
tifi
ed, a
nd
th
e
mai
n p
oin
ts o
f th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
are
pre
view
ed.
Cre
dib
ility
is e
stab
lish
ed b
y th
e
spea
ker
thro
ugh
th
e at
ten
tio
n-
grab
bin
g d
evic
e an
d t
hes
is
stat
emen
t.
Cre
ativ
e, t
ho
ugh
t-p
rovo
cati
ve
atte
nti
on
-gra
bb
ing
dev
ice
is u
sed
to in
tro
du
ce t
he
top
ic.
Rel
evan
ce o
f th
e p
rese
nta
tio
n’s
top
ic a
nd
pu
rpo
se is
ski
llfu
lly
esta
blis
hed
.
Insi
ghtf
ul,
wel
l-th
ou
ght-
ou
t th
esis
is c
lear
ly a
nd
eff
ecti
vely
sta
ted
.
Top
ic is
wel
l-id
enti
fied
, an
d t
he
mai
n p
oin
ts o
f th
e p
rese
nta
tio
n
are
tho
rou
ghly
pre
view
ed.
Cre
dib
ility
is w
ell-
esta
blis
hed
by
the
spea
ker
thro
ugh
th
e
atte
nti
on
-gra
bb
ing
dev
ice
and
thes
is s
tate
men
t.
OR
GA
NIZ
ATI
ON
Logi
cal S
eq
ue
nce
Flo
w
Tran
siti
on
s
Co
he
ren
ce
Pre
sen
tati
on
is v
agu
e in
stru
ctu
re. P
rese
nta
tio
n is
har
d
to f
ollo
w b
ecau
se o
f la
ck o
f
tran
siti
on
s an
d il
logi
cal
seq
uen
ce.
Pre
sen
tati
on
str
uct
ure
is
pre
sen
t b
ut
dev
iate
s fr
om
top
ic.
Tran
siti
on
s an
d f
low
of
idea
s ar
e sp
ora
dic
an
d
som
ewh
at d
isp
lace
d.
Pre
sen
tati
on
has
a c
on
sist
ent
stru
ctu
re b
ut
occ
asio
nal
ly lo
ses
focu
s o
f st
atem
ents
. A
n
adeq
uat
e se
qu
ence
is
follo
wed
.
Pre
sen
tati
on
has
a c
on
sist
ent
stru
ctu
re w
ith
a s
tro
ng
sen
se o
f
pu
rpo
se, w
hile
kee
pin
g au
die
nce
inte
rest
an
d c
reat
ing
an
exce
pti
on
ally
eff
ecti
ve
con
nec
tio
n o
f id
eas.
FLO
RID
A C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EGE
AT
JA
CK
SON
VIL
LE
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N -
OR
AL
CO
NT
ENT
(GEA
Ru
bri
c G
rou
p L
ead
ers
- J
oe
l Rap
po
po
rt &
Way
ne
Sin
glet
ary)
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F EF
FEC
TIV
E O
RA
L
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N-C
ON
TEN
T
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
4/1
0/2
00
81
of
2
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 15
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F EF
FEC
TIV
E O
RA
L
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N-C
ON
TEN
T
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
SUB
JEC
T K
NO
WLE
DG
ETo
pic
Dev
elo
pm
ent
(Dep
th)
Sup
po
rtin
g Ev
iden
ce
Lan
guag
e A
pp
rop
riat
e to
Au
die
nce
and
Su
bje
ct
Acc
ura
cy
Rel
evan
ce
Pre
sen
tati
on
do
es n
ot
adeq
uat
ely
dev
elo
p t
he
top
ic.
Pre
sen
tati
on
lack
s d
epth
bec
ause
of
insu
ffic
ien
t su
pp
ort
and
/or
irre
leva
nt
det
ails
.
The
cen
tral
idea
may
be
un
clea
r o
r u
nst
ated
. Gra
mm
ar
and
/or
wo
rd c
ho
ice
are
seve
rely
def
icie
nt
and
sh
ow
littl
e re
cogn
itio
n o
f la
ngu
age
app
rop
riat
enes
s.
Pre
sen
tati
on
sta
tes
a p
urp
ose
bu
t gi
ves
littl
e ev
iden
ce o
r
inco
rrec
t ev
iden
ce in
su
pp
ort
of
that
pu
rpo
se. I
sola
ted
err
ors
in g
ram
mar
an
d/o
r w
ord
cho
ice
red
uce
cla
rity
an
d
cred
ibili
ty. S
up
po
rt is
off
ered
bu
t in
adeq
uat
e fo
r th
e
pu
rpo
se. U
se o
f so
urc
es m
ay
hin
der
th
e p
rese
nta
tio
n’s
effe
ct o
r b
e in
corr
ectl
y
ackn
ow
led
ged
.
Pre
sen
tati
on
cle
arly
sta
tes
the
pu
rpo
se.
Co
nte
nt
is a
ccu
rate
and
rel
evan
t. P
rese
nta
tio
n is
free
of
seri
ou
s er
rors
in
gram
mar
an
d/o
r w
ord
usa
ge.
Val
id s
up
po
rt is
giv
en f
or
each
asse
rtio
n. S
ou
rce
info
rmat
ion
add
s to
th
e p
rese
nta
tio
n a
nd
is
corr
ectl
y ac
kno
wle
dge
d.
Pre
sen
tati
on
no
t o
nly
sta
tes
the
pu
rpo
se w
ith
cla
rity
bu
t al
so
enga
ges
the
liste
ner
wit
h
inte
rest
ing
and
/or
pro
voca
tive
info
rmat
ion
. Pre
sen
tati
on
is f
ree
of
gram
mar
err
ors
; th
e w
ord
cho
ice
pro
vid
es c
lari
ty a
nd
incr
ease
s in
tere
st. T
he
con
ten
t
and
sty
le a
re c
on
sist
entl
y
app
rop
riat
e an
d t
arge
ted
to
th
e
aud
ien
ce. D
etai
ls s
tro
ngl
y
sup
po
rt e
ach
ass
erti
on
, an
d t
he
con
ten
t is
th
oro
ugh
. Use
of
sou
rces
incr
ease
s th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
’s e
ffec
tive
nes
s, a
dd
s
to t
he
ove
rall
pre
sen
tati
on
, an
d is
corr
ectl
y ac
kno
wle
dge
d.
CO
NC
LUSI
ON
Sum
mar
y
Pro
fou
nd
En
din
g
Pre
sen
tati
on
su
mm
ary
is n
ot
iden
tifi
able
. R
efer
ence
to
th
e
mai
n id
ea is
no
t ap
par
ent.
Co
ncl
ud
ing
dev
ice
is n
ot
use
d.
Pre
sen
tati
on
en
ds
abru
ptl
y.
Pre
sen
tati
on
su
mm
ary
is
un
clea
r. M
ain
idea
is
refe
ren
ced
. C
on
clu
din
g d
evic
e
is m
ade
bu
t is
no
t im
pac
tfu
l.
Pre
sen
tati
on
su
mm
ary
is
emp
loye
d, a
nd
ref
eren
ce t
o
the
mai
n id
ea is
cle
arly
sta
ted
.
Co
ncl
ud
ing
dev
ice
add
s to
th
e
pre
sen
tati
on
.
Pre
sen
tati
on
su
mm
ary
and
mai
n
idea
are
cre
ativ
ely
and
cle
arly
emp
loye
d.
Co
ncl
ud
ing
dev
ice
is
tim
ed p
erfe
ctly
an
d m
akes
th
e
end
of
the
pre
sen
tati
on
imp
actf
ul.
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
4/1
0/2
00
82
of
2
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 16
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
VO
CA
LFl
ue
ncy
in d
eliv
ery
Pre
sen
tati
on
has
man
y "u
h/u
m"
fille
rs a
nd
dis
trac
tin
g p
ause
s
thro
ugh
ou
t
Pre
sen
tati
on
has
sev
eral
"u
h/u
m"
fille
rs a
nd
sta
mm
erin
g
Mo
st o
f p
rese
nta
tio
n f
low
s
smo
oth
ly, w
ith
just
a f
ew "
uh
/um
"
fille
rs a
nd
hes
itat
ion
s
Pre
sen
tati
on
flo
ws
smo
oth
ly
thro
ugh
ou
t, w
ith
few
or
no
dis
flu
enci
es
Vo
lum
eP
oo
r p
roje
ctio
n, m
akin
g
pre
sen
tati
on
dif
ficu
lt t
o h
ear
fro
m
any
aud
ien
ce p
osi
tio
n
Inad
equ
ate
pro
ject
ion
, mak
ing
pre
sen
tati
on
au
dib
le f
or
tho
se
clo
se t
o s
pea
ker
bu
t in
aud
ible
to
tho
se i
n b
ack
Vo
ice
pro
ject
ion
is a
deq
uat
e
ove
rall,
th
ou
gh s
om
e p
arts
of
pre
sen
tati
on
are
dif
ficu
lt f
or
dis
tan
t p
arts
of
aud
ien
ce t
o h
ear
cle
arly
Pro
ject
s vo
ice
cle
arly
to
en
tire
aud
ien
ce
Enu
nci
atio
nIn
dis
tin
ct a
rtic
ula
tio
n t
hro
ugh
ou
t
pre
sen
tati
on
Man
y w
ord
s in
dis
tin
ctM
ost
wo
rds
cle
arly
art
icu
late
dC
lear
an
d d
isti
nct
en
un
ciat
ion
thro
ugh
ou
tR
ate
of
de
liver
yD
eliv
ery
rate
(e
ith
er t
oo
fas
t, t
oo
slo
w)
is a
pri
mar
y d
istr
acti
on
Del
iver
y ra
te (
eit
her
to
o f
ast
or
two
slo
w)
is d
istr
acti
ng
at t
imes
Del
iver
y ra
te d
oes
no
t d
istr
act
fro
m p
rese
nta
tio
n
Del
iver
y ra
te is
co
mfo
rtab
le f
or
aud
ien
ce a
nd
ad
apte
d a
s n
eed
ed
for
effe
ctiv
e p
rese
nta
tio
n
Infl
ecti
on
Mo
no
ton
eM
ech
anic
al w
ith
un
nat
ura
l
sou
nd
ing
infl
ect
ion
s
Som
e ex
pre
ssio
nC
on
vers
atio
nal
Pro
nu
nci
atio
nSi
gnif
ican
t m
isp
ron
un
ciat
ion
s
dis
trac
t o
r co
nfu
se a
ud
ien
ce
A f
ew m
isp
ron
un
ciat
ion
s th
at a
re
dis
trac
tin
g, b
ut
do
no
t d
isru
pt
con
ten
t
Co
rrec
t fo
r m
ost
wo
rds
Co
rrec
t st
and
ard
En
glis
h
NO
N V
ERB
AL
Eye
con
tact
Focu
sed
on
no
tes
Focu
sed
on
tea
che
rG
lan
ces
at a
ud
ien
ceEq
ual
an
d s
ust
ain
edFa
cial
exp
ress
ion
Dea
dp
an, e
xpre
ssio
nle
ssSo
me
exp
ress
ion
pre
sen
t, b
ut
com
es a
cro
ss a
s fo
rced
Exp
ress
ion
is a
pp
rop
riat
e an
d d
oes
no
t d
istr
act
fro
m p
rese
nta
tio
n
Exp
ress
ion
en
han
ces
pre
sen
tati
on
Po
stu
reU
nst
able
an
d v
isu
ally
dis
trac
tin
gO
ngo
ing
ind
icat
ors
of
dis
com
fort
(e.g
., w
ith
dra
wn
po
stu
re, n
ervo
us
foo
t m
ove
men
t)
Stab
le o
vera
ll w
ith
min
or
dis
trac
tio
ns
Stab
le, c
on
fid
ent
Ges
ture
sFe
w o
r n
on
eA
few
, mec
han
ical
Som
e ex
pre
ssiv
e ge
stu
res
Man
y en
han
cin
g ge
stu
res
Pro
xem
ics
No
cre
ativ
e u
se o
f sp
ace
Stay
s at
po
diu
mC
on
tro
ls s
pac
eC
reat
ive
use
of
spac
eA
ttir
eIn
app
rop
riat
e , t
o t
he
po
int
of
dis
trac
tin
g au
die
nce
Mis
mat
ched
to
co
nte
xt o
f
pre
sen
tati
on
(e
.g.,
too
cas
ual
,
reve
alin
g)
Ad
equ
ate
and
no
t d
istr
acti
ng
Wel
l mat
ched
to
co
nte
xt
AU
DIE
NC
E A
DA
PTA
TIO
NP
rese
nta
tio
n is
inse
nsi
tive
to
aud
ien
ce's
pri
or
kno
wle
dge
or
atti
tud
es
Som
e at
tem
pt
to t
ailo
r
pre
sen
tati
on
to
au
die
nce
wit
h
limit
ed e
ffe
ctiv
ene
ss
Pre
sen
tati
on
sh
ow
s cl
ear
adap
tati
on
to
au
die
nce
Spea
ker
use
s au
die
nce
cu
es d
uri
ng
to c
on
ceiv
e an
d d
eliv
er s
pee
ch t
o
max
eff
ect
FLO
RID
A C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EGE
AT
JA
CK
SON
VIL
LE
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N -
OR
AL
- D
ELIV
ERY
(G
EA R
ub
ric
Gro
up
Lea
der
- J
oh
n W
all)
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F EF
FEC
TIV
E
OR
AL
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N -
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
4/1
0/2
00
81
of
1
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 17
This
pag
e is
inte
nti
on
ally
bla
nk.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 18
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
CO
NTE
NT
Ap
pro
pri
ate
top
ic d
evel
op
men
t w
ith
a
clea
r an
d c
oh
eren
t fo
cus
The
wri
tin
g is
illo
gica
l or
the
auth
or'
s p
oin
t o
f vi
ew is
no
t
dis
cern
ible
.
The
wri
tin
g re
late
s to
th
e
thes
is; t
her
e is
evi
den
ce o
f
som
e cr
itic
al t
hin
kin
g.
The
po
int
of
the
essa
y is
cle
ar
to t
he
read
er; d
emo
nst
rate
s
com
pet
ent
crit
ical
th
inki
ng.
The
po
int
of
the
wri
tin
g is
cle
ar
and
per
cep
tive
; dem
on
stra
tes
ou
tsta
nd
ing
crit
ical
th
inki
ng.
Sup
po
rt/e
vid
ence
is c
red
ible
, ad
equ
ate,
rele
van
t, lo
gica
l
The
wri
tin
g la
cks
a d
evel
op
men
t o
f id
eas,
reas
on
s, o
r su
pp
ort
.
The
essa
y la
cks
clar
ity;
lack
s
adeq
uat
e su
pp
ort
or
full
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
idea
s; c
on
ten
t
or
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
idea
s m
ay
be
inco
nsi
sten
t.
The
wri
tin
g h
as a
deq
uat
e
sup
po
rt a
nd
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
idea
s.
The
wri
tin
g is
we
ll-d
evel
op
ed
wit
h s
ou
nd
rea
son
ing
and
det
ails
.
Ori
gin
alit
y o
f id
eas
The
wri
tin
g is
off
-to
pic
or
dev
iate
s fr
om
th
e as
sign
men
t in
an u
nac
cep
tab
le w
ay.
The
wri
tin
g la
cks
ori
gin
alit
y;
ten
ds
tow
ard
gen
era
l
stat
emen
ts a
nd
lack
s a
pro
gres
sio
n o
f id
eas
.
The
wri
tin
g d
emo
nst
rate
s a
logi
cal p
rogr
essi
on
of
idea
s.
The
wri
tin
g is
we
ll-cr
afte
d a
nd
con
tain
s a
vari
ety
of
exam
ple
s
that
are
ori
gin
al a
nd
fre
sh.
OR
GA
NIZ
ATI
ON
Ap
pro
pri
ate
stru
ctu
reN
o c
lear
ob
ject
ive
(th
esis
) is
esta
blis
hed
.
A t
he
sis
is a
pp
aren
t b
ut
no
t
clar
ifie
d.
A c
lear
th
esis
is e
stab
lish
ed.
A p
reci
se a
nd
mat
ure
d t
hes
is is
esta
blis
hed
.
Co
her
ence
in t
he
pro
gres
sio
n o
f id
eas
in
sup
po
rt o
f th
e th
esis
An
y p
arag
rap
hin
g (i
f p
rovi
ded
)
is ju
mb
led
: id
eas
and
sup
po
rtin
g ex
amp
les
are
lack
ing
or
un
de
rdev
elo
pe
d a
nd
ble
nd
ed w
ith
litt
le r
egar
d t
o
pro
vid
ing
a fl
uid
, lo
gica
l
pro
gres
sio
n.
Sup
po
rtiv
e id
eas
and
exa
mp
les,
tho
ugh
pro
vid
ed, a
re h
ou
sed
in
an im
bal
ance
d o
r d
isjo
inte
d
man
ner
.
Idea
s an
d r
elev
ant
exam
ple
s
are
ho
use
d w
ith
in o
rder
ly,
dev
elo
ped
par
agra
ph
s.
Idea
s an
d e
xam
ple
s ar
e fl
uid
ly
arra
nge
d w
ith
in d
evel
op
ed
par
agra
ph
s.
No
dis
cern
ible
fo
rmal
con
clu
sio
n is
pro
vid
ed.
Tran
siti
on
s ar
e ab
rup
t.A
deq
uat
e tr
ansi
tio
ns
are
uti
lized
.
Tran
siti
on
s ar
e se
amle
ss.
The
wri
tin
g la
cks
a co
nn
ecti
ve
teth
er t
hat
lin
ks it
s p
arts
.
The
con
clu
sio
n is
un
de
rdev
elo
pe
d o
r m
arke
d b
y
red
un
dan
cies
.
Idea
s an
d e
xam
ple
s ar
e
seq
uen
ced
in a
logi
cal
pro
gres
sio
n.
The
con
clu
sio
n s
atis
fyin
gly
com
ple
tes
the
mo
men
tum
th
at
pre
ced
es
it.
Ram
blin
g an
d in
coh
eren
ce
def
ine
th
e w
riti
ng.
A c
on
ne
ctiv
e te
ther
do
es e
xist
bu
t lin
ks in
con
sist
ent
par
ts.
The
wri
tin
g is
bro
ugh
t to
com
ple
tio
n w
ith
a
com
pre
hen
sive
co
ncl
usi
on
.
The
wri
tin
g fo
rms
an o
rgan
ic
wh
ole
.
An
un
even
ord
er d
efin
es t
he
wri
tin
g.
A c
on
ne
ctiv
e te
ther
lin
ks
bal
ance
d p
arts
.So
un
d r
easo
nin
g d
efin
es t
he
wri
tin
g.
FLO
RID
A C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EGE
AT
JAC
KSO
NV
ILLE
C
OM
MU
NIC
ATI
ON
- W
RIT
TEN
(G
EA R
ub
ric
Gro
up
Le
ade
rs -
Dav
id B
ow
en &
Yo
ula
nd
a H
enry
)
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F EF
FEC
TIV
E W
RIT
TEN
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
4/1
0/2
00
81
of
2
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 19
Leve
l 1 (
INIT
IATE
)Le
vel 2
(EM
ERG
ING
)Le
vel 3
(P
RO
FIC
IEN
T)Le
vel 4
(SK
ILLE
D)
IND
ICA
TOR
S O
F EF
FEC
TIV
E W
RIT
TEN
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N
LEV
ELS
OF
AC
HIE
VEM
ENT
LAN
GU
AG
E
Ton
e is
inap
pro
pri
ate
for
the
spec
ific
au
die
nce
an
d p
urp
ose
.
Ton
e sh
ow
s so
me
awar
ene
ss o
f
aud
ien
ce a
nd
pu
rpo
se, t
ho
ugh
som
e ch
oic
es m
ay b
e
inap
pro
pri
ate
for
the
wri
tin
g
task
.
Ton
e is
ap
pro
pri
ate
for
the
pu
rpo
se a
nd
au
die
nce
.
Ton
e is
we
ll-su
ited
to
th
e
pu
rpo
se a
nd
au
die
nce
.
Ap
pro
pri
ate
ton
e an
d w
ord
ch
oic
e,
clar
ity
Lan
guag
e ch
oic
es a
re li
mit
ed,
inad
equ
ate,
or
inac
cura
te.
Lan
guag
e ch
oic
es a
re a
deq
uat
e;
occ
asio
nal
err
ors
in d
icti
on
or
usa
ge m
ay in
terf
ere
wit
h
mea
nin
g,
Lan
guag
e ch
oic
es a
re
app
rop
riat
e an
d a
ccu
rate
.
Lan
guag
e ch
oic
es a
re p
reci
se
and
pu
rpo
sefu
l, an
d in
so
me
inst
ance
s, f
resh
an
d in
ven
tive
.
Styl
e an
d c
raft
sman
ship
Syn
tact
ical
err
ors
or
amb
igu
ou
s
wo
rdin
g m
ay le
ad t
o c
on
fusi
on
.
Occ
asio
nal
err
ors
in s
ynta
x o
r
pro
ble
ms
wit
h w
ord
ing
may
lead
to
am
big
uit
y o
r in
terf
ere
wit
h r
ead
abili
ty.
Sen
ten
ces
are
gen
era
lly c
lear
ly
wo
rded
, th
ou
gh t
her
e m
ay b
e
min
or
pro
ble
ms
wit
h s
ynta
x o
r
om
issi
on
s; t
hes
e m
ino
r e
rro
rs
do
no
t in
terf
ere
wit
h
read
abili
ty.
Sen
ten
ces
are
clea
rly
wo
rded
and
un
amb
igu
ou
s.
Sen
ten
ce s
tru
ctu
re is
sim
plis
tic
or
dis
join
ted
.
Sen
ten
ce s
tru
ctu
re la
cks
vari
ety
and
ten
ds
to b
e m
ech
anic
al.
Sen
ten
ce s
tru
ctu
re is
var
ied
.Se
nte
nce
str
uct
ure
is b
oth
vari
ed a
nd
so
ph
isti
cate
d.
PU
RP
OSE
/ A
UD
IEN
CE
AW
AR
ENES
S
Lack
s aw
aren
ess
of
pu
rpo
se
and
au
die
nce
.Li
ttle
aw
aren
ess
of
aud
ien
ce.
Mo
st o
f th
e es
say
rela
tes
to t
he
pu
rpo
se a
nd
au
die
nce
.
Effe
ctiv
e an
d s
kille
d a
war
ene
ss
of
the
aud
ien
ce a
nd
ass
ign
men
t
pu
rpo
se.
Co
nte
nt
and
lan
guag
e is
su
ited
to
th
e
task
Co
nte
nt
and
lan
guag
e is
rep
etit
iou
s an
d r
ead
er lo
ses
inte
rest
.
Rea
der
do
es n
ot
lear
n m
uch
abo
ut
the
top
ic.
Wri
ter
may
wan
der
bu
t th
e
read
er s
till
lear
ns
abo
ut
the
top
ic.
Enti
re e
ssay
rel
ates
to
th
e to
pic
and
to
th
e au
die
nce
.
Sen
siti
vity
Litt
le o
r n
o a
ud
ien
ce
con
nec
tio
n.
Litt
le o
r n
o p
urp
ose
is
esta
blis
hed
.
Mu
ch o
f th
e es
say
is w
ell
org
aniz
ed in
its
pre
sen
tati
on
.
Stro
ng
org
aniz
atio
n a
nd
pu
rpo
se.
Co
nn
ecti
vity
Ram
ble
s fr
om
on
e id
ea t
o n
ext.
Stra
ys in
pu
rpo
se a
nd
org
aniz
atio
n.
Mu
ch o
f th
e es
say
is c
on
sist
ent
in s
tru
ctu
re a
nd
pu
rpo
se.
Essa
y is
ap
pro
pri
ate
and
cle
ar
and
th
e au
die
nce
can
lear
n
mu
ch a
bo
ut
the
top
ic.
CO
NV
ENTI
ON
S
Gra
mm
ar N
um
ero
us
erro
rs c
an b
e fo
un
d
in s
ente
nce
str
uct
ure
,
gram
mar
, an
d m
ech
anic
s.
Som
e gr
amm
atic
al p
rob
lem
s
are
evid
ent.
Erro
rs in
gra
mm
ar a
nd
mec
han
ics
are
rare
an
d
insi
gnif
ican
t.
Erro
rs in
gra
mm
ar a
nd
mec
han
ics
are
no
nex
iste
nt
or
insi
gnif
ican
t.
Spel
ling
Sp
ellin
g an
d/o
r w
ord
cho
ice
erro
rs m
ay b
e ab
un
dan
t.
Spel
ling
and
wo
rd c
ho
ice
erro
rs a
re e
vid
ent,
bu
t n
ot
abu
nd
ant.
Spel
ling
and
wo
rd c
ho
ice
erro
rs
are
no
t e
vid
ent.
Spel
ling
and
wo
rd c
ho
ice
are
corr
ect
and
ap
pro
pri
ate
to
colle
ge-l
evel
wri
tin
g.
Pu
nct
uat
ion
Form
- A
pp
rop
riat
e p
roce
du
re
Pre
par
ed b
y ks
tear
ns,
4/1
0/2
00
82
of
2
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 20
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT ACTION PLAN
2008-2009
DATE TIME ROOM GOAL EXPECTED OUTCOME Friday 9/26/08
8:00 – 12:00 Noon
DEERWOOD
To inform the college community on the college wide general education assessment plan to include faculty’s selection of the appropriate tool(s) to assess the communication skills learning outcome.
To provide a report detailing whether the MAPP data provides the appropriate information on which to make curricular decisions.
To provide an opportunity for interdisciplinary groups of faculty to design and develop a maximum of three pilots that would focus on assessing the general education communication skills student learning outcomes using the chosen assessment tools.
The attendees will be more knowledgeable of the FCCJ general education assessment plan and of tool(s) to be used to assess the communication skills learning outcome.
To analyze and evaluate the MAPP data in relation to the assessment program’s desired outcomes.
Creation of three pilots for implementation in the Spring of 2009 that would use the chosen assessment tools to assess the general education communication skills student learning outcome.
Thursday 10/23/08
1:00-4:30 p.m.
DEERWOOD
To provide an opportunity for inter-disciplinary groups of faculty to develop rubrics to assess information literacy skills and critical thinking skills.
Create rubrics to assess student achievement of the general education information literacy skills and critical thinking skills learning outcomes.
Friday 11/21/08
8:00 – 12:00 Noon
DEERWOOD
To select the appropriate tool(s) to assess the general education information literacy skills and critical thinking skills learning outcomes
To provide an opportunity for inter-disciplinary groups of faculty to develop rubrics to assess scientific and quantitative reasoning skills and global socio-cultural responsibility.
Choose appropriate tool(s) to assess information literacy skills and critical thinking skills using the agreed upon rubrics as a guide.
Create rubrics to assess student achievement of the scientific and quantitative reasoning skills and global socio-cultural responsibility general education learning outcomes.
Thursday 1/29/09
1:00-4:30 p.m.
DEERWOOD
To select the appropriate tool(s) to assess the general education scientific and quantitative reasoning skills and global socio-cultural responsibility learning outcomes.
Choose appropriate tool(s) to assess the general education scientific and quantitative reasoning skills and global socio-cultural responsibility learning outcomes using the agreed upon rubrics as a guide.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 21
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT ACTION PLAN
2008-2009
DATE TIME ROOM GOAL EXPECTED OUTCOME Friday 2/27/09
8:00 – 12:00 Noon
DEERWOOD
Thursday 3/26/09
1:00 – 4:00 p.m.
DEERWOOD
Friday 4/24/09
8:00 – 12:00 Noon
DEERWOOD
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 22
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT (GEA) TASK FORCE*
TO DO LIST
1. Determine the method of assessing the communication skills student learning
outcome.
2. Develop and implement a maximum of three (3) pilots for assessing the general
education communication skills learning outcome.
3. Develop Rubrics for Information Literacy.
4. Determine the method of assessing the Information Literacy learning outcome.
5. Determine the date to begin assessing Information Literacy.
6. Develop Rubrics for Critical Thinking Skills.
7. Determine the method of assessing the Critical Thinking Skills learning outcome.
8. Determine the date to begin assessing Critical Thinking Skills.
9. Develop Rubrics for Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning.
10. Determine the method of assessing the Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning
learning outcome.
11. Determine the date to begin assessing the Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning
learning outcome.
12. Develop Rubrics for Global Socio-Cultural Responsibility.
13. Determine the method of assessing the Global Socio-Cultural Responsibility
learning outcome.
14. Determine the date to begin assessing Global Socio-Cultural Responsibility.
15. Finalize the 2008-2009 time line for completing tasks.
16. Design the FCCJ General Education Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Program.
17. Finalize the schedule for implementation of the assessment program.
18. Identify process design and implementation procedures related to the collection,
storage, retrieval, and assessment of artifacts and reporting outcomes to the
appropriate agencies.
* With the help of the faculty and academic administrators
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 23
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. TASK FORCE
A. Composition
1. That the GEA Task Force be composed at a minimum as follows:
Faculty Senate President or designee – liaison to Senate and the
Center for the Advancement for Teaching and Learning
One faculty leader for each of the five liberal arts areas
Two at large liberal arts faculty
Two workforce faculty
One librarian
One Campus President
AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences
AVP for Workforce
Two liberal arts academic deans
One workforce dean
Executive Dean of the Virtual College
Director of Program Development, Liberal Arts and Sciences
One Research Analyst
An assistant to the Task Force
Director of Instructional Research
B. Meetings
It is recommended that the GER Task Force.
1. Establish its meeting schedule for the entire academic year 2008-09 at its
first meeting in the fall of 2008.
2. Meet twice per month September through November and once in
December; twice a month January through April; and schedule additional
meetings as necessary.
3. Present to the faculty and academic administrators an end-of-year
summary report in April 2009.
4. Meet with the GER Sub-Committee at the end of the fall term to present a
mid-year report and at the end of the spring term to present a summary
report for the year and seek input and recommendations for inclusion in
the end-of-year report to the Executive Vice President.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 24
5. Meet with the Executive Vice President at the end of the spring term and
submit an end-of-year report including any recommendations.
6. Submit to the College Curriculum Committee the end-of-year final report
including any recommendations.
7. At its meeting in the fall of 2008, review the tasks to be accomplished in
2009, finalize the time line, and identify specific responsibilities to be
assigned to its members.
II. Academic Assemblies
A. Composition
1. Faculty
2. Academic Administrators
3. Others as appropriate
B. Meetings
1. One per month September through November.
2. One per month January through April
C. Process
1. Send out meeting notices to all faculty, all adjuncts, IAC and other academic administrators as appropriate of college wide academic assemblies.
2. Create multi-disciplinary groups.
3. Use group numbers and color coding when creating multi-disciplinary
groups.
4. Provide to the groups the necessary handouts and written directions to
maximize time utilization.
5. Allow for group summary reports by working group leaders rather than
task force members.
6. Collect, categorize, summarize, and electronically report the assembly
results to attendees, and other appropriate groups as necessary.
7. Use Blackboard format to refine and finalize rubrics as necessary.
8. Distribute electronically mid- and end-of-year summary reports to all
faculty and academic administrators.
9. Create multi-media illustrations as appropriate.
10. Keep and maintain the task force’s web site
11. Provide for open forums as necessary and video record.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 25
III. Task Force Data Support
A. That the AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences, in collaboration with the Task
Force faculty chair, appoint a task force sub-committee to crosswalk MAPP
categories and proficiency levels with FCCJ’s learning outcomes definitions
and rubric indicators.
B. That the AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences, in collaboration with the Task
Force faculty chair, appoint an on-going committee to evaluate currency and
validity of existing rubrics and recommend updates and revisions to the Task
Force.
C. That the AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences, in collaboration with the Task
Force faculty chair, appoint a sub-committee to seek, collect, analyze, and
evaluate systems available to gather, store, retrieve, and report assessment
data in the manner recommended by the Task Force as well as the
technology needed to successfully implement an FCCJ general education
student learning outcomes program
D. That the AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences, in collaboration with the Task
Force faculty chair, appoint a sub-committee to design the process for
determining types of artifacts to be assessed, population to be assessed, the
point at which artifacts will be assessed (e.g., work from students who
completed 30 credit, >45 credits?), who will be conducting the assessment,
how the data will be grouped (e.g, qualitatively, quantitatively?), reporting
format, to whom the data will be reported (including to the State and SACS),
and how the data will be incorporated into the curriculum review process to
revise learning outcomes and improve general education learning outcomes.
E. That the task force determine how general education learning outcomes
assessment pilots will be solicited from faculty and the criteria for selecting
pilot proposals.
F. That a task force member be appointed to be the liaison to faculty groups
conducting the Task Force’s sponsored general education learning outcomes
assessment pilots during the spring term 2009 and report and provide to the
task force pilot progress reports.
IV. General Education Program and Curriculum Revision Process
A. That the process of reviewing general education courses be conducted when
the major General Education Requirements review begins in academic year
2009-2010 to line up course outcomes with the FCCJ’s five general
education learning outcomes’ definitions and rubrics, and to revise/update
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 26
curriculum map as applicable to ensure that the five statewide areas are
included in the Learning Outcomes Assessment (LOA) section of the course
outlines.
B. That the review and possible revision of rubrics, indicators and levels of
achievement begin in academic year 2010-2011 and every three years
thereafter. Revision recommendations will be submitted to the GEA Task
Force.
C. That learning outcomes assessment results be incorporated into the three
year course outline review cycle.
V. Concerns Expressed by Faculty
A. Cost of developing a learning outcomes assessment project - will it be funded
after the program is designed, or will it be set aside for lack of financial
commitment?
B. If testing is chosen as one of or the method of assessment, there is a
concern about the allocation of class time to the administer tests or other
aspects of the assessment plan.
C. Who will be charged with doing all this work when class size has increased
tremendously and faculty are still expected to participate in professional
development activities and service to the campus and College? Who will
make this decision?
D. If e-portfolios are to be used, who will be responsible for obtaining and
processing artifacts (e.g. uploading), students or faculty? Who will make this
decision?
E. Are 100% of students to be assessed or will it be a randomized percentage?
Who will make this decision?
F. How many outcomes will be assessed at once? How often will we assess?
Will assessment of a given number of outcomes be rotated? Who will make
these decisions?
G. How are we going to report results? Are we going to state what is (e.g.,
communication skills outcome – 30% at such and such level, 10% at such
and such level), or are we going to set a numerical or qualitative standard first
and then evaluate if standard has been met? How would a standard be set?
Who will make these types of decisions? How will this information be used?
H. Will results be presented as aggregated data or will specific courses and
sections be identified? If so, will the results be used for faculty evaluation?
I. Will there be training available to help faculty incorporate learning outcomes
expectations into courses by helping faculty design appropriate assignments?
Will there be training available to help faculty learn how to properly use
rubrics?
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 27
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
2009
FACULTY
Sheri Brown, Librarian, DTC
Youlanda Henry, Communications, NC
Patty Lee, Workforce, GER Committee Co-Chair, NC
Bill Meisel, Mathematics, DTC
Nancy Mullins, Faculty Senate President, SC
Lourdes Norman, Science, KC
Joel Rappoport, Mathematics, SC
Wayne Singletary, Workforce, KC
Andrea Thaxton, Humanities, KC
John Wall, Social and Behavioral Sciences, SC
ADMINISTRATION
Maggie Cabral-Maly, Kent Campus President
Lynne Crosby, Director of Program Development, Liberal Arts and Sciences
Julie Giuliani, Executive Dean of the Virtual College
Mike Reynolds, Associate Dean, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, KC
Jim Simpson, AVP for Workforce Development and Adult Education
Charles Smires, Dean of Liberal Arts, SC
Karen Stearns, Research Analyst
Jennifer Stoetzer, Task Force Assistant
Nancy Yurko, AVP for Liberal Arts and Sciences
CO-CHAIRS: Youlanda Henry, Faculty Chair
Nancy Yurko, Administrative Chair
NOTE: Other faculty members and/or academic administrators may be added if needed.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 28
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 1
Florida Community College at Jacksonville
General Education Assessment Pilot
MAPP Test Abbreviated Form
Spring 2008
Revised April 28, 2008
Overview and Purpose – page 1
Overview of Reports – page 2
Available Data – page 3
Student Sampling and Use of FCCJ‟s Pilot Data – page 3
Use of MAPP Tests – page 4
Lessons Learned – page 5
Appendices – page 7
Overview and Purpose
In Spring 2008, FCCJ administered the Measure of Academic Progress and Proficiency (MAPP)
Test paper and pencil Abbreviated Form as a pilot assessment activity. This activity was
sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning as an educational
research project and by the FCCJ General Education Assessment Task Force as a pilot for the
General Education Assessment Project.
The purpose of this pilot was to get a sense of the paper and pencil test administration and testing
experience, as well as to see what types of data and results the institution could use for the
General Education Assessment project.
The Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) test is a measure of college-
level reading, mathematics, writing, and critical thinking in the context of the humanities,
social sciences, and natural sciences. The MAPP test is designed for colleges and
universities to assess their general education outcomes, so they may improve the quality
of instruction and learning. It focuses on the academic skills developed through general
education courses, rather than on the knowledge acquired about the subjects taught in
these courses (ETS).
“[T]he reading questions and the critical thinking questions represent all three of the academic
contexts - humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences - but the number of questions from
each academic context in each subform can differ” (p. 7). See Appendix 1 for the definitions of
the skills areas tested by the MAPP. Please note that FCCJ did not select to administer the essay
option for the test. This is a computer-based writing assessment that is scored by the ETS „e-
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 29
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 2
rater‟ computer program. For the mathematic questions, the students were advised that they
could choose to bring and use a 4-function, scientific or non-graphing calculator.
The Abbreviated form provides too small a sample of each student‟s performance to permit the
reporting of individual scores (except for total scores). A student who takes the Abbreviated
form is actually only taking one-third of the test, and the individual scores are not a reliable
indication of the scores the student would have received on the full standard test.
Overview of Reports
The MAPP Test Abbreviated Form is not intended to provide information about individual
students. It is intended to provide information about groups of at least 50 students.
ETS provides criterion-referenced and norm-referenced reports.
Summary of Scaled Scores for a group of at least 50 students which can be compared to other groups within the institution or with a large combined group of students from
several other institutions using the Comparative Data Guide. The Summary of Scaled
Scores shows the mean scores for groups; however this information is not as useful for
the General Education Assessment project.
Summary of Proficiency Classifications for a group of at least 50 students (see Appendix
2) which can be compared to other groups within the institution or with a large combined
group of students from several other institutions using the Comparative Data Guide.
Proficiency level includes the percentage of student [in a group] classified as proficient,
marginal, and not proficient” (ETS, 2007, p.13). Proficiency levels include a weighting of
the questions by ETS. Different subscores may not be comparable to each other (ie. do
not compare students‟ or groups‟ scores of reading to scores of writing). However, the cut
scores for each skill area in the Abbreviated form should be fairly comparable to the cut
scores for the same skill area in the Standard Form.
Available Data
Raw data for cohorts can be downloaded into MS Excel for additional analysis by the institution.
However, when using the Abbreviated form, student identifiers such as names or student IDs
cannot be downloaded. “[I]t is not possible to compare data from the Abbreviated form
administrations to other academic indicators for individual students, such as class grades, GPA,
or other test scores” (ETS, 2007, p. 14). The nature of the data does allow us to compare scores
and proficiency classifications with academic indicators such as GPA or credit hours earned,
without the ability to link back to individual students, instructors, or reference numbers. The
demographics in the data are based on students‟ self-reporting during the testing administration,
and is not validated or linked to actual student records in Orion.
FCCJ included additional demographic questions related to program of study and general
education requirements. This information will be downloaded to create additional reports and
analyze results. However, the raw data from the additional demographic questions may be
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 30
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 3
available only in scale scores and not in proficiency classifications. Further clarification is
needed from ETS.
Student Sampling and Use of FCCJ‟s Pilot Data
FCCJ did not use a random sample or spaced sample for this pilot. As mentioned previously, the
purpose was to get a sense of the paper and pencil test administration and testing experience, as
well as to see what types of data and results the institution could use for the General Education
Assessment project. For example, no distance learning classes were included in the pilot.
However, ETS does offer a web-based testing option for the MAPP in both a proctored and
unproctored administration.
The FCCJ sample included two groups of students: Group 1 included students enrolled in a
course that students tend to take in their first or second semester of their associate degree
(specifically ENC 1101 English Composition I) and Group 2 included students enrolled in
courses that FCCJ students tend to take in their last semester of college level coursework in the
associate degree. Please note that there may be students who were enrolled in Group 2 courses
who may actually not be at the end of their associate degree program. The demographic data
includes self-reported responses about the number of credit hours a student has earned and the
amount of their general education program the student has completed. (Faculty who were going
to administer the test were asked to announce the test administration at least one day prior to the
test date and request that students bring this demographic information with them.) This data will
help in analyzing the data in more useful demographic groups than what may result from
comparison and analysis of Group 1 and Group 2. However some students may not have
completed any of their general education categories at the time of the test administration, and
each program may have a different credit hour requirements to satisfy general education.
Furthermore the specific class sections of interest for the study were identified initially from a
transcript review and student record analysis. Then full-time and part-time faculty members
teaching these sections were invited to participate. Ultimately the sections in which the test was
administered included faculty volunteers who were teaching Session 1 (A16), A12, and B8
classes in a total of 40 „face-to-face‟ class sections across multiple campuses and centers - North,
Nassau, Downtown, South, Deerwood, and Kent.
The test was administered in regularly scheduled class periods of the volunteer faculty members‟
classes. Students were informed that the test results would not be linked to them as an individual
student or become a part of the student‟s academic record. Faculty were surveyed (see Appendix
3) after the test administration to inquire about methods of motivating students to take the test,
whether a test proctor would have been helpful in their classroom, and suggestions for test
administration processes and instructions if the College decided to administer the MAPP test
again. Faculty used a variety of means to motivate students to participate in the MAPP test, such
as extra credit points, class participation points, ability to help shape assessment project.
In this pilot, 457 students were enrolled in a total of twenty-one Group 1 class sections and 360
(79%) of those students actually participated in the MAPP test administration; 494 students were
enrolled in a total of nineteen Group 2 class sections and 364 (74%) of those students actually
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 31
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 4
participated in the MAPP test administration. Some students were absent the day of the test, or
had dropped/withdrawn from the class by the time the test was administered. In a few cases, the
student was enrolled in two class sections where the test was administered, and was instructed to
only take the test once. 723 or 76% of the total enrolled student population of the volunteer
faculty class sections participated in the MAPP test administration.
ETS advises that “it may be adequate to test only a sample of students - but only if the sample is
selected in such a way that students taking the test will not differ systematically from those
who are not tested….Students enrolled in particular courses tend to differ systematically from
students not enrolled in those courses….The smaller the sample of students from a subgroup, the
less likely that the statistics will generalize to the entire subgroup….The greater the proportion of
the students in your sample who do not take the test, the more your sample is likely to differ
from the population” (ETS, 2007, pp. 20-21).
“The reliability of scores for small groups would be appropriate for evaluating curriculum but
not appropriate for teacher evaluation or for group-to-group comparisons, due to influence of
very high or very low scores of individual students and group differences” (ETS, nd). Therefore,
use of some type of random sample would allow us to make inferences about the larger college
credit student population at the institution.
If using a random sample, and want to compare a group to another group, ETS advises that
subscores and proficiency classifications are examined as well as total scores to determine if
significant differences in group performance might be due to curricular choices as well as student
achievement.
It is important to note that we do not know if some or all of the students completed the test with
their best effort. Some students may not have approached the test with the goal of an optimal
performance.
Use of MAPP Tests
ETS indicates that colleges and universities typically use MAPP tests for the following reasons:
Standard Form
Measure growth in specific types of skills reflected in subscores or proficiency classifications
Trend Indicator of scaled scores (different students over time, but same overall groups)
Comparison with other institutions of scaled scores and proficiency classifications of
groups (number of credit hours, and institution type/Carnegie)
Counseling tool for assisting in placement into courses
Recruitment aid – to identify students who are likely to benefit from the institution‟s instructional programs.
Abbreviated Form
Measure growth or change in overall test score only
Trend Indicator of scaled scores (different students over time, but same overall groups)
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 32
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 5
Comparison with other institutions of scaled scores and proficiency classifications of groups (number of credit hours, and institution type/Carnegie).
Lessons Learned
Abbreviated vs. Standard Test Forms – the Standard form is two hours long, compared to the 40
minute Abbreviated form. Selecting the Abbreviated form allowed the test to be administered in
50 minute class sessions, but did not provide as thorough reports due to the nature of the test.
(Apparently the Standard form can be administered in two sittings – this option needs to be
investigated further). If the College were to continue to use the Abbreviated form and add the
writing essay option, it would require that the test be administered outside of class, or in class
sessions that are longer than 50 minutes.
ETS Demographics vs. FCCJ Demographics (GER and POS) –
ETS includes communication courses in the Humanities General Education;
ETS groups AA and AS together; and
ETS includes many other names of program groups that would confuse our students and fail to provide us with useful data.
Additional Questions – to overcome the issues mentioned in the previous bullets, FCCJ
developed additional demographic questions and modified the instructions for the ETS
demographics. At this time, ETS does not provide us reports with proficiency level
classifications for the students in terms of how they responded to the additional demographic
questions. We only received scaled scores. However, it is possible to download this raw data for
further analysis.
Administration issues – the coordination and administration of the paper and pencil Abbreviated
MAPP test in class sections, as opposed to a testing center, was time consuming. ETS expects
high standards of test security and test proctoring instructions and scripts that must be
communicated to and adhered by each campus and the volunteer faculty members. Test
inventories were conducted prior to test distribution and upon receipt of completed tests from the
volunteer faculty members. Administering the test during class time took time away from
instruction. Since the paper and pencil format was selected, distance learning courses were not
included in the test administration.
Sampling – it was not helpful to split students into two groups (ENC 1101 and Courses in which
students tend to take at the end of their program); if FCCJ would like to develop a baseline, a
sampling procedure that can be replicated in future years that will yield informative results is
necessary to design.
Student motivation – faculty were asked to announce the MAPP test in the class session prior to
the day it would be administered. This could, in part, account for the 76% completion rate.
About one quarter of the students did not take the test due to absence or due to changing their
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 33
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 6
enrollment status in the class (ie. student may have withdrawn from the class prior to the
announcement of the MAPP). In addition, for those students who completed the test, it is
unknown how seriously students approached the test. Some faculty offered extra credit for
completing the test and others did not.
ETS definitions of outcomes vs. FCCJ definitions – the MAPP test was selected for a pilot prior
to FCCJ defining communication skills outcomes, critical thinking skills outcomes, and
quantitative reasoning. Now that these definitions have been developed, a team of faculty will
need to compare the FCCJ definitions to the ETS definitions that were used to design the MAPP
test. If the MAPP test does not match the FCCJ definitions, discussion on FCCJ‟s future use of
the MAPP should occur. If, for example, the communication skills outcome definitions match,
but the quantitative reasoning definitions do not, the MAPP test cannot be broken apart. The
test, either Abbreviated or Standard, must be administered in its entirety. The only optional piece
is the writing essay. But the test must include the reading, English language and quantitative
portions.
Actionable results – proficiency classification data seems to be much more useful than scaled
score data in terms of the General Education Assessment project. Once available data is analyzed
and reported, the General Education Assessment Task Force should discuss whether the types of
data and results from ETS MAPP are applicable to our institution‟s assessment purposes and
could be used as the basis for future actions.
References:
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2007, July 1). MAPP User‟s Guide. Retrieved April 8,
2008, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MAPP/pdf/MAPP_Users_Guide.pdf.
Educational Testing Services (ETS). Measure of Academic Proficiency program workshop:
About scores and reports. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from
http://www.starttest.com/4.0.0.1/starttest.aspx?cmd=login&program=mapp&type=institution&ta
rget=order&limit=one.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 34
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 7
Appendix 1:
College-level reading questions measure students’ ability to:
Interpret the meaning of key terms
Recognize the primary purpose of a passage
Recognize explicitly presented information
Make appropriate inferences
Recognize rhetorical devices
College-level writing questions measure students’ ability to:
Recognize the most grammatically correct revision of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences
Organize unites of language for coherence and rhetorical effect
Recognize and reword figurative language
Organize elements of writing into larger units of meaning
Critical thinking questions measure students’ ability to:
Distinguish between rhetoric and argumentation in a piece of nonfiction prose
Recognize assumptions
Recognize the best hypothesis to account for information presented
Infer and interpret a relationship between variables
Draw valid conclusions based on information presented
Mathematics questions measure students’ ability to:
Recognize and interpret mathematical terms
Read and interpret tables and graphs
Evaluate formulas
Order and compare large and small numbers
Interpret ratios, proportions, and percentages
Read scientific measuring instruments
Recognize and use equivalent mathematical formulas or expressions
(ETS, 2007, p. 4)
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 35
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 8
Appendix 2:
Proficiency Measures
Reading/Critical Thinking
To be considered proficient at Level 1, a student should be able to:
recognize factual material explicitly presented in a reading passage
understand the meaning of particular words or phrases in the context of a reading passage
To be considered proficient at Level 2, a student should be able to:
synthesize material from different sections of a passage
recognize valid inferences derived from material in the passage
identify accurate summaries of a passage or of significant sections of the passage
understand and interpret figurative language
discern the main idea, purpose or focus of a passage or a significant portion of the passage
To be considered proficient at Level 3, a student should be able to:
evaluate competing causal explanations
evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts
determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion
determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported by evidence contained in a work
recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art
evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for investigating a question of causation
evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses or methods
recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument
Writing
To be considered proficient at Level 1, a student should be able to:
recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and
conjunctions)
recognize appropriate transition words
recognize incorrect word choice
order sentences in a paragraph
order elements in an outline
To be considered proficient at Level 2, a student should be able to:
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 36
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 9
incorporate new material into a passage
recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and
conjunctions) when these elements are complicated by intervening words or phrases
combine simple clauses into single, more complex combinations
recast existing sentences into new syntactic combinations
To be considered proficient at Level 3, a student should be able to:
discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of parallelism
discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of idiomatic language
recognize redundancy
discriminate between correct and incorrect constructions
recognize the most effective revision of a sentence
Mathematics
To be considered proficient at Level 1, a student should be able to:
solve word problems that would most likely be solved by arithmetic and do not involve
conversion of units or proportionality. These problems can be multi-step if the steps are repeated rather than embedded.
solve problems involving the informal properties of numbers and operations, often involving
the Number Line, including positive and negative numbers, whole numbers and fractions
(including conversions of common fractions to percent, such as converting "1/4" to 25%)
solve problems requiring a general understanding of square roots and the squares of numbers
solve a simple equation or substitute numbers into an algebraic expression
find information from a graph. This task may involve finding a specified piece of information in a graph that also contains other information.
To be considered proficient at Level 2, a student should be able to:
solve arithmetic problems with some complications, such as complex wording, maximizing or
minimizing, and embedded ratios. These problems include algebra problems that can be solved by arithmetic (the answer choices are numeric).
simplify algebraic expressions, perform basic translations, and draw conclusions from algebraic
equations and inequalities. These tasks are more complicated than solving a simple equation,
though they may be approached arithmetically by substituting numbers.
interpret a trend represented in a graph, or choose a graph that reflects a trend
solve problems involving sets; problems have numeric answer choices
To be considered proficient at Level 3, a student should be able to:
solve word problems that would be unlikely to be solved by arithmetic; the answer choices are
either algebraic expressions or numbers that do not lend themselves to back-solving
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 37
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 10
solve problems involving difficult arithmetic concepts such as exponents and roots other than
squares and square roots and percent of increase or decrease
generalize about numbers, (e.g., identify the values of (x) for which an expression increases
as (x) increases)
solve problems requiring an understanding of the properties of integers, rational numbers, etc.
interpret a graph in which the trends are to be expressed algebraically or one of the following
is involved: exponents and roots other than squares and square roots, percent of increase or decrease
solve problems requiring insight or logical reasoning
(ETS, 2007, pp. 9-11).
Appendix 3:
Faculty Survey
Comments from Faculty who Administered the Paper and Pencil Abbreviated MAPP Test
in their Class Sections
February 2008
1. How did you motivate the students to take the test?
I advised the students that in no way would the results of the test compromise their standing at FCCJ.
Rather, this was a test to determine that we, as faculty and administrators, were providing the best possible
educational experience for our students. Prior to the test, we did a mock "objective" test and discussed test
taking strategies. I also brought candy the day of the test to alleviate their anxieties and to create a relaxed
environment.
I bribed them with 15 points of Extra Credit..... I also told them I would look over the answer sheets and if
it appeared they had "Christmas treed it", they would not get extra credit. I also told them that it should
take most of the allotted time to take the test, if it did not take them most of the allotted time, then I would
have my doubts about the level of their effort.
I basically just asked the students to do the best they could for me. I really didn‟t know specifics about the
test so it was hard to give them much insight on what was going on.
I gave them the usual class credit for coming that day to take the test.
I gave them 4 points extra credit just to take it (and then take their scheduled test on their own time in our
testing center. (They took the MAPP with me, but in order to avoid losing a day, I let them take what was
to be a regularly scheduled in-class test in the testing center. I gave them a 3-4 (Day???) window to take
their regular test to try to spread it out a little for the testing center.)
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 38
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 11
I gave students a free 100 on a quiz for showing up to take the test that day.
I counted the test as an assignment and gave them points.
I told them they were a part of an important change in education in Florida and were a “special” and
“chosen” class.
To motivate my students I first told them why we were doing the test. That is to try and find a tool to help
the college assess whether students were learning what we said they should learn. Additionally, I gave
each of my students 50 extra credit points. They can generally earn about 250 extra credit points during a
term so the test amounted to about one fifth of the total.
I actually offered my students points just as I would in other written activities or group activities in
my class. Usually when the students participate in group activities, they have the ability to earn 10 points.
On the evening of the test, they were given 10 group activity points for their participation. Actually, this
class was a terrific group of students and were happy to participate. Everyone except for one student
participated. The only reason she did not was because she was late for class that evening.
I offered them bonus points as well as told them that they had the opportunity to participate in an important
project that would help to determine whether the college would be administering the test to students in the
future.
I told them they would receive class credit.
2. From your observation of the students, did they appear motivated to take the test and try to do
their best? If you administered the test in more than one section, were there any apparent
differences in student interest/motivation?
I was assigned only one section. The students were motivated to do their best and several commented, "We
want to do a good job, Dr. Clark, to make you look great." There was a feeling this was a cooperative
venture. Although we strictly adhered to the test requirements, there was a generally relaxed feeling among
the students and I alleviated any anxiety by stating that if a student felt a question was beyond his or her
comprehension, that was expected. I also wrote on the board, "Do your best and you'll exceed the rest."
Yes. I saw the same wrinkled brows I do any classroom exams. Same nervous behavior -- leg bouncing
and ceiling gazing.
Most of my students worked very hard on the test. It appeared that I had two students finish the test too
quickly.
I only had one section. Most of the students were not motivated and did not want to take the test.
I think so, but I really couldn‟t tell if they were motivated. I could observe any difference in the two
sections that I administered.
I think the students took the test seriously. Several of my students told me the test was quite difficult.
I felt as if the students took the test seriously.
Yes, they all brought their calculators and answers to the questions about their program of study. Most of
them used the entire time permitted.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 39
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 12
I do not know if my Macroeconomic (ECO 2013) students did their best. There was some grumbling about
having to take a timed test, though most seemed to finish in the time allotted. My Microeconomic (ECO
2013) students seemed much more motivated and did not complain about the time limit. The
Microeconomic students are older, more mature and are generally my best students. They also seemed to
appreciate more the reason for the test.
The students seemed very motivated for the test, and I think they did their best. We completed the test
administration in one sitting. Many of the students were finished before the allotted time expired. Also,
when I asked the students how they thought they did, the majority felt they did well. I also asked them if
they found the test to be difficult, and the majority responded that they did not find the material too
difficult.
From my observations, the students seemed to give the test their best effort. I did not see anyone rushing
through it, and I saw a number of students going back to read over sections that they had already been over.
They were not very excited about taking the test at all.
3. Do you think that it would have been helpful to have a proctor assisting you in administering the
test?
No. A proctor would have added to an anxiety level and therefore students would not have done their best.
No. The classroom is tight in space. Adding even one more person would have been more of a hindrance
than a help.
No, not for 24 students.
It would have been better to have someone familiar with the test to administer it.
It couldn‟t hurt, but if there is no real motivation for students to put forth maximum effort, I‟m not sure
how much of an effect that will have.
No – it was easy enough to proctor.
I did fine on my own.
No, I don‟t think it was necessary.
It would have been helpful to have a proctor. It would have speeded up passing out, collecting and
accounting for the exams and answer sheets.
Not really. It was relatively easy to do.
I don't think that it was necessary to have another proctor with me to administer the test.
I don‟t think a proctor was necessary.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 40
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 13
4. If the college were to do this again, do you have suggestions or recommendations for test
administration process and instructions, including the demographic/course history section at the
beginning, administering the test in a class period, etc.?
Many of our students have had little experience with test taking skills. I spent a class period before the test
teaching these skills and the students, therefore, felt motivated to do their best. Perhaps the college might
think about a pre-test skills session. I was surprised that many students have had bad experiences with the
FCAT and approached this test with a high degree of uncertainty and fear of failure. The pre-test session
helped alleviate these fears.
Do all the sections for that time slot in the Wilson Center or some similar setting. I told them beforehand
that it was an SAT style test. They immediately asked if they would be testing in a room other than the
classroom.
It would be much better if the answer sheets were already complete for the students; and a couple of the
directions on the completion of the answer sheet seemed to not match the answer sheet. If we simplify the
start process I think we can complete the whole testing procedure in one hour so that we don‟t have to lose
much class time.
Have someone who is familiar with the test (not faculty) to administer the test.
I did not like having to work around losing a class period and then inundating our testing center. I think it
should be administered by the assessment centers.
If the college really wants all this information, maybe the students should fill out the answer sheet on a
different day from the one on which they are given the test.
No, the instructions were very clear.
Is there a way to do the demographic information automatically based upon the student‟s id? That part
seemed to take a long time. I gave that information to my students two class periods in advance and to
receive their jps they had to bring it to the exam. Is there a reason the exam is timed? While my students
had enough time, if we would have said they had an hour, there would have been fewer complaints.
I would like to have had the instructions for the test ahead of time so that I would have been more familiar
with the administration of the test as well as the content of it so that I would be more prepared. The only
confusing element about the beginning of the test was the part where the social security number was
supposed to be entered in reverse order, and I believe the last 4 digits were to be entered first.
I don‟t have any suggestions. I think the process was smooth.
5. Any other comments or suggestions about the test………
Reminds me of all those tests we administered in high school.
The main recommendation I have is that I think my students would have responded perhaps more
favorably, if a proctor, very familiar with this test, would have explained specifics regarding its purpose. I
did my best, but I think it is possible that this factor might make a difference for future MAPP tests.
I do not know how to properly motivate the students. If a test was used by colleges as part of admission to
the last two years, then AA students would be more motivated. I would prefer that the test was not given
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 41
Prepared by L. Crosby, Revised 4/28/08 Page | 14
during regular class time (when do you give it?) as I am always short of time, particularly in
Macroeconomics. Should this test or one like it be given at the end of the students program? What are we
trying to assess? Do we want to know if students completing our program achieved some level of outcome,
or how much they improved while they were here? Is it possible to have five or ten questions on student‟s
final exams in various courses to see how they did. This would motivate them as they are competing for a
grade. But the questions would have to be different for various courses. Which sections would you
choose? All of them? Another advantage of this approach is that we could tell in which courses they are
achieving (or not) the desired outcomes.
No, I was happy to help.
GEA Task Force, rev 5/12008 Page 42