Part II

A permanent record of their work that can be useful to them in later studies, jobs, etc.

A record that allows them to assess and reflect on their development of skills and knowledge.

A tool to enable professors to determine an individual’s contributions to group work (e.g. our Capstone project)

And help them see student progress within a course and over two years

How it was developed How it’s being used

http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/index.cfm

The AACU VALUE rubrics for critical thinking, integrative learning, written and oral communication, information literacy, and inquiry and analysis all apply directly to the skills students gain in our program.

Students develop disciplinary knowledge pertaining to course problems or themes and an understanding of modes of thinking (“ways of knowing”) in discrete disciplines.

They also display interdisciplinary thinking and are able to make connections between and among their courses and purposefully employ “ways of knowing” and specific disciplinary knowledge across disciplinary boundaries.

the ability to communicate orally and in writing, The skills needed to gather, analyze, document, and

integrate information, a detailed understanding of historical processes, literary

and aesthetic movements, and specific cultural contexts, an understanding of the different “ways of knowing”—

modes of thought, concerns, and methodologies—in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences,

the ability to use quantitative methods in the natural and social sciences,

The ability to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking drawn from two or more disciplines to produce an interdisciplinary understanding of complex problems and engage in perspective-taking.

Evaluate coursework and individual assignments as a way of assessing progress towards program goals

Connect individual courses to interdisciplinary outcomes

Use “folio thinking” to consider overall growth and development

Select/identify elements of the portfolio for formal assessment

Develop academic identity 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1hI2Q_KtfM&feature=player_embedded

The Assignment: During your four semesters of study in Rhetoric, Humanities,

Social Sciences and Natural Sciences at CGS you will develop critical skills in six major areas, namely 1) the ability to communicate in writing and orally, 2) the skills needed to gather, analyze, document, and integrate information (research skills), 3) a detailed understanding of historical processes, literary and aesthetic movements, and specific cultural contexts, 4) an understanding of the different “ways of knowing”—modes of thought, concerns, and methodologies—in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, 5) the ability to use quantitative methods in the natural and social sciences, and 6) the ability to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking drawn from two or more disciplines to produce an interdisciplinary understanding of complex problems and engage in perspective-taking.

As you survey the work in your e-portfolio, think about your progress in each of these areas and how it may be documented in the samples you have collected. Where have you been able to demonstrate your knowledge of literary movements or historical contexts? Where can the reader see evidence of your writing and research skills and your ability to reason quantitatively? How have you taken account of different approaches to knowledge in the courses you have been taking, and what connections have you been able to make between and among your courses? What has your interdisciplinary experience meant to you?

Write a brief but detailed reflective essay guiding the reader through your accomplishments over the past year. Wherever possible, use specific examples and detail taken from the examples in your portfolio to support your claims about progress and skills you have gained. Finally, consider your goals for next year. If possible, identify specific areas where you would like to make additional progress. When you are finished, post your essay to the “Interdisciplinary Reflections” section of your portfolio.

Length: 2-3 pages Because I was the professor assigning the

prompt, lots of focus on Rhetoric. Interestingly, many scored themselves between 2

and 3 regularly—2: Developing and 3: Competent Very few self-assessments of 1 or 4 Most addressed competencies 1-4 and 6, but not

5. Why not? Quantitative Reasoning and Science Did not use the language in the rubric, i.e.,

descriptions of “competent” or “developing.” We need to encourage students to use that language more consistently

From Lynn’s Students: 1-4 and 6: most students “competent” and “developing,”

very few 1s and 4s; students “got it right” Students saw the value of a joint paper between Social

Science and Humanities, particularly in regard to “making connections” among courses.

We need to do a better job helping students see quantitative methods outside of “just science” courses and/or drop that variable in first year.

Universally, located their ability to “gather, analyze, and document” information in their Rhetoric 102 course where they were learning research writing. But, we know for fact do some elsewhere.

Might need to encourage the students to think more generally across the year, rather than course by course.

Faculty and administrators can assess the impact of our program using eportfolios and the rubric.

Using 100 randomly selected eportfolios, our rubric, and a Filemaker database system, we can assess the average % of improvement in each competency area over the course of our 2-year program.

This highlights our strengths and weaknesses and areas to focus on as we improve our curriculum and pedagogy.

Most professors on our assessment committee assign similar scores for competencies, but there have been some discrepancies in interpretations of the rubric terms (i.e. seeing the levels of competency as relative to the student’s year instead of absolute values.)

Most of us are seeing a drop in competency areas in the 3rd term. (Reasons?)

We may not give enough assignments that address some of the competency areas (or we may need to tweak the rubric . . . )

  level 4excellent

level 3competent

level 2developing

level 1no mastery

Written and oral communication

Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task (including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices); uses graceful language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error-free

Demonstrates consistent use of important conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task; uses straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to readers. The language in the portfolio has few errors.

Follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task for basic organization, content, and presentation; uses language that generally conveys meaning, although there may be problems with clarity and the writing may include some errors.

Attempts to use a consistent system for basic organization and presentation; uses language that sometimes impedes meaning or clarity. Contains errors in usage.

Gathering, analyzing, and documenting information

Synthesizes in-depth information from a range of high-quality, credible, relevant sources that are appropriate for the discipline and genre to develop ideas and documents these sources fully using MLA or Chicago style.

Consistently presents in-depth information from credible, relevant sources appropriate to the discipline and genre to support ideas. Documents sources with few errors or exceptions using MLA or Chicago style.

Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas and to document these sources properly using MLA or Chicago style.

Minimally attempts to use sources to support ideas in the writing; these sources may not be correctly documented using an acceptable style manual and/or may not be fully relevant to the task at hand.

Awareness of specific historical, literary, and cultural contexts

Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content and sufficient detail to illustrate mastery of the subject, including historical, literary, and cultural contexts.

Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to explore ideas within the context of the discipline(s), but many not yet provide sufficient detail or illustrate mastery of historical, literary, and cultural contexts.

Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work; does not display a consistently clear or adequately detailed understanding of historical, literary, and cultural contexts.

May use appropriate and relevant content to develop simple ideas in some parts of the work.

Rhetorical and aesthetic conventions

Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, purpose. Makes skillful rhetorical choices and shows deep appreciation for literary and aesthetic conventions and their effects.

Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose. Understands rhetorical effects and shows appreciation for literary and aesthetic conventions and their effects.

Demonstrates some awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Can identify rhetorical strategies and shows some appreciation for literary and aesthetic techniques and conventions.

Demonstrates minimal attention to context, purpose, and audience. May not be aware of rhetorical effects of one’s own work or of rhetorical strategies and literary techniques in works analyzed.

Critical Thinking and perspective-taking

Questions are examined from a range of viewpoints, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Conclusions and related outcomes are logical and reflect the student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Specific position takes into account the complexities of an issue and acknowledges other viewpoints. Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information.

Information is presented with some interpretation or evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Acknowledges different sides of an issue, but may be more aware of others’ assumptions than one’s own (or vice versa).

Specific position is stated, but is simplistic and obvious. Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed. Information from sources is presented without interpretation or evaluation.

Integrative and applied learning

Makes insightful connections across disciplines and perspectives. Draws conclusions by combining examples, facts, theories or methodologies from more than one field of study to arrive at a sophisticated interdisciplinary understanding.

Makes connections across disciplines and perspectives by independently combining examples, facts, theories, or methodologies from more than one field of study.

When prompted, connects examples, facts, or theories across disciplines and perspectives. May not show a strong understanding of how methodologies differ across fields of study or could be applied in a new situation.

When prompted, presents examples, facts, or theories representing different disciplines and perspectives. Shows a limited interdisciplinary understanding.

Quantitative methods

Uses quantitative analysis of data as the basis for deep and thoughtful judgments, drawing insightful and carefully-qualified conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data as the basis for competent judgments, drawing reasonable and appropriately qualified conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data for basic judgments, drawing plausible conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantiative analysis of data for tentative judgments; hesitates to draw conclusions from this work.

CGS Rubric

But in general, we are seeing real growth Both in writing skills but also in critical

thinking And the students’ self-assessments are

indicating their awareness of their growth, while also making them more articulate about their development.

(Thank you to the Davis Educational Foundation and the

Department of Education for funding)