Senior Literacy Assessment:AY 2011-2012

Senior Literacy Assessment

•English assessment was an interest of USDE and MSCHE▫Undertaken in various forms since with the

first study in 1993 then again in 1997, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012.

•ASL assessment begun in 2011 under direction of Dirksen Baumann and ASL Dept.

•SLA is a stop-gap until we put in place full assessment of institutional outcomes

Goals of the Senior Literacy Assessment

• Engage faculty in professional development regarding assessing literacy

• Provide data about Gallaudet graduating seniors that can be used for institutional and program improvement

• Provide data that can be used by appropriate groups to establish target literacy performance levels for Gallaudet undergraduates

• Describe the changes in Gallaudet student writing performance as they progress through the undergraduate curriculum

• Recommend improvements to future assessment processes

Senior Literacy Assessment Participation: Spring 2012# of graduating seniors by spring semester 343

Written English Product Assessment

# of written English products submitted 130 (a 17% decrease from the previous year)

# of written English products evaluated 129 (a 18 % decrease from the previous year)

# of evaluators for English products 13 (similar to previous year)

ASL Product Assessment

# of ASL products submitted 55 (a 244% increase from the previous year)

# of ASL products evaluated 43 (a 169% increase from the previous year)

# of evaluators for ASL products 12

2012 Departmental Participation•# of Departments submitting Written

English products 19

•# of Departments submitting ASL product 10

•# of Departments submitting both Written English and ASL products 10

•ASL-DST ONLY Dept. to submit both types of products in 2011 and 2012

ASL and English Assessment

•Each product rated in five parallel criterion areas

•Scale of 1 to 4•The rubric for ASL was adapted from the AACU

Value Rubric for Oral Presentation•The rubric for written English used this year

(for the first time) was the AACU Written Communication Value Rubric.

•Rubrics changed this year; there is no established process for determining which rubrics will be used for institutional assessment

Average and Range Across all Programs (ASL)

Organization Language DeliverySupporting Material

Central Message Formatting

AVERAGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.1

N/A

RANGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS 2.1 – 2.8 1.3 – 3.2 1.8 – 3.1 1.0 – 3.3 1.0 – 2.5 2 .0-4.0

There were dramatic differences in mean scores among Departments. Students in the departments of Education, FCS, and ASL-DST received 3 or higher  more often than students in other departments.  

Average and Range Across all Programs (Written English)

CONTEXT AND PURPOSE FOR WRITNG

CONTENT DEVELOP-MENT

GENRE AND DISCIPLINARY CONVENTIONS

SOURCES AND EVIDENCE

CONTROL OF SYNTAX AND MECHANICS

AVERAGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS 3.0 2.9 2 .9 2.7 2.7

RANGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS 1.5-4 1.8-4 1.7-4 1.1-4 1.5-4

There were dramatic differences in mean scores among Departments. Students in the departments of Biology, History, Honors, International Studies, Liberal Studies, Sociology, and Theatre had a higher number of criterion areas in which they received 3 or higher than did other departments.

What is Next? Short-Term

•Remind Chairs early in the year of expectations

•Increase Program use of written English and ASL presentation products in Senior year

•Increase faculty engagement in understanding characteristics of good ASL and English products

•Set literacy targets

What is Next? Long-Term

•General Education outcomes and majors outcomes together

•GE and major outcomes assessed in the senior year

•Engage Institutional Outcomes Committee and CUE in standardizing expectations for institutional assessments

•Figure out what the forums are for discussing program strengths and weaknesses in achieving institutional outcomes