6d8396e3___89
[0] Data Gathering [1] Students scores in each of the CTW assignmemts will be summarized and evaluated by the faculty once each year. [2] Data Gathering [3] A three-person departmental CTW assessment committee led by the departmental CTW ambassador (Jonathan Gayles) will meet at the close of the semester and, using a random sample of twenty-five percent of the papers from each class, independently assess the degree to which CTW is apparent. The scores will be collected and, using the average of all raters, the CTW ambassador will schedule and lead a discussion regarding potential revisions to the departmental CTW plan for the coming year. Our rubric represents a modification of the "Rubric for the Analytical Assessment of Critical Thinking across the Curriculum" used by Valenica Community College's "Learning Evidence Team." The The original rubric can be found at < http://valenciacc.edu/learningevidence/rubrics.asp > while our departmental modification was attached to each of the course submissions. [4] Data Gathering [5] Professors will report grades to the Department�s Assessment Coordinator (Dr. Frank Williams). This information, other assessment data currently being collected, the professors� qualitative impressions of student work, and a draft assessment report written by the Assessment Coordinator will be discussed at a Department�s faculty meeting. The report will indicate recommended changes to the CTW, if any, or the assessment of CTW. The Assessment Coordinator will then revise the report as needed and submit it to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [6] Data Gathering [7] Critical Thinking through Writing assignments will be assessed by the professor of each course using a rubric as part of the usual grading process. The professor of each course will provide the list of CTW assignments, rubric scores, and examples of effective, less effective, and ineffective student writing to the Assessment Coordinator (Sara Weigle). The Assessment Coordinator will annually compile this information into a report and meet with the department's undergraduate committee and the professors who taught CTW courses to discuss the outcomes and make any recommendations for refining the rubrics and the assignments. The report and recommendations for the following year will be submitted to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [8] Data Gathering [10] Data Gathering [11] Each semester, the Ambassador will request a random sampling of approximately 25% of student work for each CTW course. The results will be evaluated in consultation with AE and AH faculty using departmental rubrics specific to each major. Since different assignments stress different critical thinking skills, a comparison of 2-3 within an individual course, as well as across courses, will enable us to pinpoint specific weaknesses and strength. Ideally, the sequence of CTW courses will demonstrate improvement in the rubric scores from the first to the last assignment within the same course, as well as an overall improvement from the first to the second course within each major. After the data from the initial semester is assessed, we will establish future benchmarks and propose any necessary changes to the course assignments and/or rubrics. [12] Data Gathering [13] Each CTW writing in ART 3910, ART 4500 and 4950 Portfolio II will be assessed by faculty using the CTW rubric designed for the CTW component of the course. The CTW Ambassador for the Studio Arts Program will aggreagate the scores of the rubrics and then meet to discuss the results with the Area Coordinators from the studio disciplines. Recommendations for refining the CTW components of ART 3910/Critical Issues in Contemporary Art and 4950/Portfolio II courses will be made at this time, as well as any recommendations for improving the CTW rubrics. [14] Data Gathering [15] Reports will be assessed using rubrics which are based upon the paper submission guidelines for ACS journals. Formative assessment of student writing will be attained by comparing the numerical scores of initial and final drafts of reports using a scoring rubric. We anticipate that the scores on a single assignment will go up following more drafts of the assignment. Summative assessments will be attained by comparing scores from reports submitted at the beginning and end of semesters using a scoring rubric. We anticipate that scores on the initial (first) draft of the assignments will increase during the semester. [16] Data Gathering [17] Professors teaching the CTW courses in the BIS concentrations will provide sample assignments and student responses to assignments. They will also provide rubric scores if applicable. [18] Data Gathering [19] This page contains excerpts from the ACS Authors guide which may be found at http://pubs.acs.org/4authors/submission.html Each of the following sections is assessed based on the following scores: excellent, adequate, not yet adequate, poor, or not applicable. Title. Excellent. The title should accurately, clearly, and concisely reflect the emphasis and content of the paper. The title must be brief and grammatically correct Adequate: Missing one key component. Not yet adequate: Title misses more than one of the key components. Poor: Not descriptive of the experiment. N/A is not an option all papers must have titles. Introduction: Excellent: Includes a full statement of the problem, any background theory that will be used to answer the problem and the basic experimental design that will be used to answer the problem. Adequate: Minor errors in either experimental design, theory or unclear statement of the problem. Not yet adequate: A major error in one of the above categories or several minor errors. Poor: Major errors the experimental design, or a lack of understanding of the theory or misstatement of the problem. N/A is not an option. Experimental: Excellent: Includes the details of the experimental procedure (section titled Materials and Methods). A competent chemist should be able to reproduce the experiment using this section of the paper. Adequate: Minor details omitted that would hamper reproduction of the experiment. Not yet adequate: A competent chemist would have difficulty reproducing the experiment. Major components of experiment not described or omitted. Poor: Lack of experimental detail Results: To think critically about data, it must be presented accurately, clearly and in a logical order. Excellent: Data presented fully including appropriate significant figures. Data are presented in logical order. Data format is readily available (in appropriate Tables, Figures and text) for facile assessment by the authors and readers. Adequate: One of significant figures, logical order, and efforts to make data readily accessible missing. Not yet adequate: Two of the above missing. Poor: Confusing organization of the data and/or major errors in presenting significant figures. Discussion/Conclusions. Excellent: In depth analysis of data including any error analysis which cumulates in the answer to the question or problem stated in the introduction. Adequate: Error analysis not complete, minor questions about interpretation of data, improper, but minor problems applying theory. Not yet adequate: No error analysis or many errors in interpretation of data or theory. Poor: No understanding of theory, major errors in data interpretation. Figures and Tables: Figures: Each figure must have a caption that includes the figure number and a brief description, preferably one or two sentences. The caption should immediately follow the figure with the format �Figure X. Figure caption.� All figures must be mentioned in the text consecutively and numbered with Arabic numerals. The caption should be understandable without reference to the text. Ensure that the symbols and abbreviations in the caption agree with those in the figure itself and in the text and that the figure (including labeling of the axes) is sized appropriately. Tables: Each table must have a brief (one phrase or sentence) title that describes its contents. The title should follow the format �Table X. Table Title�. Put details (including nonstandard abbreviations) in footnotes, not in the title. Excellent: Use tables and figures when the data cannot be presented clearly as narrative, when many precise numbers must be presented, or when more meaningful interrelationships can be conveyed by the tabular format. Tables should supplement, not duplicate, text and figures. Tables should be simple and concise. It is preferable to use the Table Tool in your word-processing package, placing one entry per cell, to generate tables. Adequate: Most tables or figures have descriptive narrative (captions or titles) with minor errors which either have a lack of clarity or are not needed. Not yet adequate: Tables and figures do not add to the clarity of the paper. Poor: Tables and figures take away from the readability or clarity of the paper. References: Place at the end of the article. In ACS publications, references are cited superscript numbers. Students using EndNote should use the J. Am Chem. Soc. style. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all references. Authors should check all parts of each reference listing against the original document. The References section will be used for overall assessment but not critical thinking assessment. Excellent Adequate Not Yet Adequate Poor N/A Title and Author Introduction Experimental Results Discussion/Conclusion Tables Figures [20] Data Gathering [21] The major�s Critical Thinking through Writing Ambassador (Greg Smith) and its assessment coordinator (James Roberts) will co-chair an annual meeting of CTW instructors to discuss both the instructors� evaluation of student projects and the overall effectiveness of the assignments on developing critical thinking and writing. The instructors will agree on a limited number of improvements to be made in teaching these courses next year, and this recommendation (along with a summary of the instructors' discussion) will be forwarded to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [22] Data Gathering [23] The assessment of the CTW courses will be based on a separate rubric than the one used to grade the Jour 3010 stories to evaluate a sample of the unedited first assignment from each course and the last assignment in each course. These assignments will have the authors� name stripped from the papers, and the instructors of the courses will not participate in the assessment of their own students� work. The benchmark would be an improvement in the rubric scores from the first to the last assignment within the same course and an improvement from the first assignment in Jour 3030 and the final assignment in Jour 4040 and JOUR 4800. [24] Data Gathering [25] Each semester the professors of SPCH 3250 and SPCH 4800 will assess and designate the final project as being not competent; having emerging competence; developing competence; competent; having sophisticated competence. Assessment will be based on the ability to analyze seven key elements: the ability to identify or produced major arguments; the capacity to clarify the context (audience, cultural, etc.) in which those arguments are being formed; the ability to identify and produce major claims used to support a thesis; the ability to identify and employ supporting materials to engender arguments; the capacity to comprehend how symbols (words, images) create knowledge and thus support arguments; the ability to compose arguments in a structured manner; and the ability to recognizing how form and process support the force of argument. After the professor of the course has collected the information, it will be passed along to the CTW ambassador. The ambassador will convene with the professors who taught the courses to collect feedback about the CTW assignment structure, assessment tools, and potential future avenues for improving the CTW classes. The CTW ambassador will then composed and revise a report based on faculty feedback and submit it to the GEAC and post it on WeaveOnline. [26] Data Gathering [27] Writing assignments in both CTW courses will be evaluated using the same rubric. Quantitative results will be compiled in a spreadsheet providing a quick comparison of the rubrics in the two classes. In addition, theatre faculty will meet to review a cross-section of student work qualitatively in terms of both the development of CTW skills and the effectiveness of the program as a whole in developing well-rounded theatre students. The annual CTW report will pair the spreadsheet with a narrative summarizing and evaluating results and suggesting any revisions deemed necessary to the CTW plan and the program in general. [28] Data Gathering [29] The CTW implementation plan for the BBA in CIS would be embedded in one course, CIS 4980, System Development Projects. This course is the capstone course. Students in CIS 4980 are assigned to analyze, identify, and evaluate appropriate computer-based solutions for �real� clients in local Atlanta-based organizations. In this course, the students work closely with �real� information systems managers to help them identify work processes and workflows that might benefit from a proposed computer-based solution. Specifically, the student prepare a comprehensive proposal to implement a computer-based system in response to an existing, discovered problem (or opportunity) in the organization�s workflow. This comprehensive proposal is written (and presented orally), and includes formal sections that address points 1-5 in the CIS definition of CTW that is presented above. The students are required to explicate, in great detail, how they would address points 1-5. These points are manifestations of the learning outcomes for graduates of the BBA in CIS. We have developed a rubric to assess their achievment with respect to these written assignments in CIS 4980. [30] Data Gathering [31] We have identified two courses that have an emphasis on writing software solutions (code), and documenting these solutions. The students' solutions can be turned in electronically, allow the instructor to verify correctness. Over the semester, the students are expected to develop critical thinking regarding the functionality of their code. Engagement will be apparent as the assignments become increasingly difficult or advanced. [32] Data Gathering [33] Prior to the end of the academic year the Department's CTW Assessor will collect the data from CTW teaching faculty and will run a report analyzing rubric scores on the assessed measures, identifying the assignments that faculty asked students to write responses to, and presenting examples of effective, less effective, and ineffective student thinking. With this information the CTW Ambassador will convene a meeting with CTW teaching faculty to discuss the assignments, the rubrics used, and the teaching experiences in general. Based on these discussions faculty will refine and/or modify the rubrics and assignments as needed. The resulting report, including any changes to the syllabi and curriculums, as well as any other recommendations, will be forwarded to the GEAC Committee. [34] Data Gathering [35] Each above assignments will include a rubric to assist evaluation and assessment. Professors who have taught the course will meet annually to review assessment outcomes, revise assignments accordingly, and create a report for the GEAC committee and put it on Weave Online. [36] Data Gathering [37] Teacher candidate's participation in CTW coursework will take place in two Birth thru 5 courses: BRFV 3250 (Professional and Ethical Practice) and BRFV 4370 (Language, Literacy, and Cognition). Each course haz been developed within the CTW framework and contains two assignments designed to strengthen student's CTW skills. Each assignment will be evaluated using a CTW rubric designed specifically for that assignment. Through the use of these 4 rubrics, course instructors will evaluate and record student work. Students' progress in the CTW assignments will be tracked and summarized by the CTW ambassador. [38] Data Gathering [39] We plan to gather results from our two designated CTW major courses, ECON 3900 and ECON 4999, through the individual grades students obtain on the various CTW assignments and, most notably, their improvement between drafts. Measuring individual improvement is the most useful way of knowing whether the student is responding to feedback, and thus if the feedback is appropriate. In ECON 3900, two homework assignments, worth 10% each, will be given back after the first draft to allow the student to improve on it. Thus, two drafts of each problem set in total will be handed in. The problem sets will involve interpreting articles in the media and applying current events to concepts learned in class. In ECON 4999, three versions of a book review will be handed in by the end of the semester. The student will be required to address any concerns the instructor has in subsequent versions of the book review in order to improve the book review grade. Concerns will be based on the bullet points outlined in the sample book review outline that will be made available on uLearn. In particular, the student will be graded on the following components of the book review: the introduction, explanation of the book, application of at least two economic concepts to the book explanation in the body of the text, structure of review, valid opinion and conclusion, and references (graded also through citing sources accurately and not plagiarizing). Quizzes and class participation will also involve thinking critically. Some quizzes will involve grading other students' work and explaining why or why not they agree or disagree with their colleague's grade upon having the quiz returned. The quizzes will often require the students to critically evaluate classical economic assumptions and provide real-world examples of how and why these assumptions may not be valid. [40] Data Gathering [42] Data Gathering [43] We will use the online writing environment. [44] Data Gathering [45] All writing assignments will be common across all sections of the course and will be graded according to specific rubrics. Rubric grades will be compiled each semester. Assignments will be assessed and revised each semester as necessary. A final report will be written each semester evaluating students' engagement in critical thinking through writing. [46] Data Gathering [47] Professors teaching the CTW courses will report assessment scores, based on agreed upon rubrics, to Dr. Hankins at the end of each semester. This information in addition to the professors� qualitative impressions of student work will be gathered and compiled into a draft assessment report by Dr. Hankins. Dr. Hankins will then circulate the report to the CTW professors and to the department chair. The report will, if necessary, indicate recommended changes to the CTW courses or to the assessment of CTW assignments. Dr. Hankins will then revise the report as needed and submit it to the General Education Subcommittee. [48] Data Gathering [49] The Undergraduate Studies Committee will prepare a qualitative report each year that evaluates a random sampling of student assignments and instructor feedback from History 3000 and History 4990. The report will, if deemed useful, recommend changes to the CTW courses as well as the CTW assessment regime. This report will be submitted to the General Education Subcommittee. [50] Data Gathering [51] The assessment will be based on student performance on the case studies assigned individually and on individual and group performance on the business analysis project. Rubrics have been identified for both case assignments and the group project. The group project will also include an evaluation of individual performance completed by each group member. Feedback from industry representatives will also be incorporated into the assessment process. Improvement through rewrites and revisions will also be assessed in terms of improvements with the group project and case studies. [52] Data Gathering [53] There are nearly 580 students per semester taking BUSA 3000 and we will use two writing assignments. Thus, there will be many data points that can be used. In particular, since there are many sections of the course, we will have the faculty meet for several purposes. 1. Discuss the challenges of the writing assignments and the grading procedures using the rubrics. 2. We will survey students regarding their understanding of the grading criteria. 3. After the first semester of full implementation we will reconvene the faculty members to review the success of applying the rubric grading scheme. We will also ask each faculty member to develop metrics for comparing the work of the students on the first and the second assignment. [54] Data Gathering [56] Data Gathering [57] Since a substantional part of the course grade includes critical thinking, instructors and/or professors will report grades to the Department's Assessment coordinator (Dr. Lund). Additionally, student performance on the assignments that address critical thinking will be reported to Dr. Lund. This information along with student performance data will be presented at an annual faculty meeting (tentatively April meeting). Following this discussion, recommendations for change will be made. A report on the Department's assessment of critical thinking will be prepared along with the suggested changes and revisions in current policies. This report will be submitted to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [58] Data Gathering [59] General Plan: Each of the four MGS BBA concentration areas will collect across-student assessments of critical thinking levels on each of the three skills set out in the Department CTW plan: (1) Selection of relevant facts, (2) Systematic analysis of relevant facts using subject matter tools, and (3) Logic-based conclusions. Implementation: Each concentration area in MGS has an assessment plan in place; the Ambassador who is responsible for the course/concentration will also be responsible for the assessment for their concentration. The CTW Ambassadors and the Associate Chair will develop reporting instruments that will aggregate the CTW evaluations from the student assignments in each concentration's 4000-level class consistent with the first paragraph here. After concentration-level assessment data have been collected and aggregated, these data will be forwarded to the Department's Associate Chair, who has all assessment oversight responsibilities. The analysis will look for comparisons with prior year's results, including any impact of continual improvement initiatives instituted as a result of prior year's assessment, and for opportunities for the introduction of new continual improvement initiatives. A summary report will be submitted to the Department Chair and to those in the University overseeing CTW courses who can make further suggestions on improving the delivery of CTW courses and assignments. [60] Data Gathering [62] Data Gathering [64] Data Gathering [65] Data will be collected from each class taught and compiled. A random sample of assignments will be created using the student work product from each instructor that has taught the MK 4900 course. A report will be prepared based on the data annually. Revisions to the written assignments and to the rubrics will be made based on the results. [66] Data Gathering [67] Each instructor who teaches CTW courses will assess students critical thinking and writing from assignments or exams by using rubrics. Every year, the CTW ambassador will organize a meeting with these instructors to discuss their assignments, the effectiveness of the assignments, and then write a report and make recommendations for refining the assignments (or rubrics). The report and recommendation will be forwarded to General Education subcommittee and Weave online. [68] Data Gathering [69] All writing assignments will be graded using a rubric, and data will be gathered and aggregated by the CTW ambassador on a yearly basis. [70] Data Gathering [71] For the 3000 level, the French section has chosen to define the Introduction to Literary Texts (FREN 3033) as the CTW gateway course. For the 4000 level, the two civilization courses (FREN 4103 and FREN 4123) will be designated CTW courses. Students will have the choice between the two for their capstone course. For all courses, the CTW component of the course will count for 25% of the final grade. In the literature course, assignments will take two forms: 1) commentaries of literary texts (following the pattern of the famous and classical French �explication de textes� based on excerpts of prose, theater and poetry and 2) thematic essays on literary topics related to the works studied in class. In civilization courses, the CTW assignment will be an essay on a cultural topic (social, artistic and political), with an emphasis on comparison, either within the target culture or with another culture. Several criteria will be considered in assessing the assignments. In addition to the correctness of answers, particular attention will be paid to the quality of the written expression used by the student (clarity; choice of vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, level of style) and to the methodology of writing (general structure; thought process; clarity and evolution of the argumentation; validity and use of the examples chosen for the demonstration). Students will be assessed according to six CT skills: 1. Interpretation (categorization, decoding significance, clarifying meaning) 2. Analysis (examining ideas, identifying arguments, analyzing arguments) 3. Evaluation (assessing claims, assessing arguments) 4. Inference (querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, drawing conclusions) 5. Explanation (stating results, justifying procedures, logic, synthesis ability) 6. Self-reflection (self-examination, self-correction, rewriting) For each course, an Excel file will contain three ratings for each assesment (see rubric), the average of which will be the CTW grade for the course. The file will allow comparisons, percentages, which will help to see the improvement of the students and which skills need to be more precisely targeted. It will also help to write the annual report too. After the professor of the course has collected all information, it will be passed along to the major's CTW ambassador in French (Eric Le Calvez), who will collect feedback about the CTW assignment structure, assessment tools and potential future avenues for improving the CTW courses. Then the major�s ambassador will chair an annual meeting of CTW instructors in French to discuss both the instructors� evaluation of student projects and the overall effectiveness of the assignments on developing critical thinking and writing. The instructors will agree on a limited number of improvements to be made in teaching these courses the following year, and this recommendation (along with a summary of the instructors' discussion) will be forwarded to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [72] Data Gathering [73] The German section will ensure that each CTW designated course will incorporate a sizeable (in percentile) number of writing assignments with a CTW component, at least 30% of the final course grade. A holistic rubric will be used to assess the quality of the assignment. The concensus was that students are able to write in the target language at this level, but the language and syntax per se will only be assessed in the rubric as to whether it inhibits communicative focus. The topic of the assignment itself will be adapted to mirror the concentration (see for example the business assignment under sample assignments). Learning outcomes spread sheets are already in place and can be modified by the administrative staff to conform to the rubric and calculate the mean. It was decided to retain a 1-6 rating scale as this both mirrors the professional standards assessment rubric and our current learning outcomes assessment profile. [74] Data Gathering [75] Faculty who teach the Spanish CTW courses will complete a questionnaire developed by the major ambassador based on input from the rest of the faculty. The questionnaire will help determine the extent to which students were engaged in critical thinking through writing during the semester. This information will then be reviewed by the ambassador and the departmental liaison in charge of assessment. The liaison will then be able to file a report with the CTW administration. [76] Data Gathering [77] The CTW instructors in these courses will use similar rubrics. They will examine and revise rubrics annually to assure that rubrics can be clearly understood by the students and that the rubrics provide a basis for assessment that can measure the quality of critical thinking through writing from one course to another. The CTW Ambassador to the School of Music will aggregate the scores of the rubrics for the three-part research assignment and submit them electronically to the University CTW Assessment Coordinator. The electronic submission will also include the professor�s qualitative assessment of the student�s work. The coordinators and ambassadors will meet annually with the professors who will teach the courses to discuss the assignments, the rubrics, the professor�s experiences in general, and to make recommendations for refining the assignments and the rubrics. The report, with recommendations for the next academic year will be forwarded to the General Education Sub-committee for review. [78] Data Gathering [79] Currently, a standardized critical thinking assessment is given to the students during their first semester and again in their last semester. This assessment is done through ERI - Educational Resources, Inc. It has been in use for several years. The plan is to continue administering this assessment and to developed a common rubric that can be utilized to assess CTW in the identified courses. The data that will be gathered for NURS 2080 will be grouped/normed and compared to data for the same group of students in NURS 4600. [80] Data Gathering [81] The instructors will provide students� scores on the assignments, based on the rubrics, to the undergraduate program director who will aggregate the scores for the division. Faculty members in the division will participate in an annual assessment meeting to review and discuss the assignments, rubrics, and students� scores and make recommendations for modifying the assignments, rubrics, courses and/or curriculum, as needed. Comparisons of students� critical thinking and writing skills between the junior and senior courses will also be made in order to judge improvement over time. The final report and recommendations will be submitted to the General Education Subcommittee and on WeaveOnline. [82] Data Gathering [83] The professors will give each student�s final draft two grades: one on critical thinking and one on writing. The grades will be given on the A-F scales with +/-. See attached grading scale. In philosophy, critical thinking is the skill of correctly evaluating the arguments made by others and composing good arguments of one�s own. In this document, �writing� refers to the skill of writing clear, well organized, and grammatically correct English prose. Professors will report these grades to the Department�s Assessment Coordinator (Dr. Andrew J. Cohen). This information, jointly with other assessment data currently being collected, the professor�s qualitative impressions of student work, and a draft assessment report written by the Assessment Coordinator, will be discussed at the Department�s annual assessment meeting. The report will, if necessary, indicate recommended changes to the CTW courses or the assessment of CTW. The Assessment Coordinator will then revise the report as needed and submit it to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [84] Data Gathering [85] In each of the two courses designated CTW courses for the B.S. in Physics, a number of writing assignments will be given. The assignments in both these courses mainly consist of written reports or portions of written reports on scientific experiments (predominantly structured experiments in the first course and predominantly open ended research in the second). The particular assignments in each course will be designed to bring out the critical thinking process. Each assignment will be scored according to a rubric developed for use in that course. The performance measures will be aggregated across the class for each course to produce a separate measure of the different aspects of critical thinking through writing at the junior and the senior level. These performance measures for the various aspects of critical thinking will be reported in the annual CTW report for the B.S. in Physics. [86] Data Gathering [87] Faculty teaching POLS 3800 will collect random samples of student work submitted as first and final assignment by the same student to serve as evidence of development of CT skills. These along with grades for the course will be submitted to the CTW coordinator. Faculty teaching POLS 4900 will submit each student�s CTW score on the final paper as well as the grade for the course to the CTW coordinator. In the Spring Semester of each academic year the CTW coordinator will meet with faculty teaching CTW courses to discuss the assignments, learning outcomes and suggestions for improvement or changes to the CTW courses or to the assessment process. The CTW coordinator will forward the CTW report and recommendations of the faculty to the undergraduate director for inclusion in the learning outcome report for the Department. The undergraduate director will prepare a final report on CTW to be submitted to the General Education Subcommittee and Weave Online. [88] Data Gathering [90] Data Gathering [91] Instructors will report scores for the CTW assignments based on the rubrics at the end of each semester to the CTW Ambassador. The Ambassador will review the assignments and scores with the instructors. They will identify where students exhibited effective and ineffective critical thinking based on the average and range of scores on each part of the rubric. They will evaluate the assignments and rubrics, and recommend changes to the course, assignments, and rubrics based on this assessment to better assist in developing critical thinking through writing skills. The instructors, assisted by the CTW Ambassador, will create a report of the results and an action plan for any changes that will be forwarded to the GEAC committee and put on WeaveOnline along with other assessment data. [92] Data Gathering [93] Instructors will report scores on the assignments at the end of each semester to the Department�s Assessment Coordinator (Dr. Alan Ziobrowski) and Ambassador. The Ambassador will review the assignments and scores with all instructors of RE4700. They will identify where students exhibited effective and ineffective critical thinking based on the average and range of scores on each part of the rubric. They will evaluate the assignments and rubrics, and recommend changes to the course, assignments, and rubrics based on this assessment to better assist in developing critical thinking through writing skills. The Assessment Coordinator will create a report of the results and an action plan for any changes that will be forwarded to the GEAC committee and put on WeaveOnline along with other assessment data. [94] Data Gathering [95] Each year the CTW Ambassador will select randomly ten final papers from each CTW section taught in the previous calendar year. The Ambassador will then distribute these papers to a CTW assessment committee comprised of the CTW Ambassador, the department's assessment committee and all faculty members who taught a CTW course in the prior academic year. This CTW assessment committee will then evaluate these papers using the following rubric: FOCUS 1. Does not have a thesis 2. Thesis is unclear 3. Thesis is stated but is not sustained over the course of the paper 4. Thesis is clear but focus on thesis could be stronger 5. Thesis is clear and is pursued throughout the paper ORGANIZATION 1. There is no discernable organization 2. The organization of the paper is unclear 3. The organization is at times clear/sections of the paper are organized 4. The paper is organized but in a way that is not optimal 5. The paper�s organization is clear and logical and it helps the author make his/her claims EVIDENCE 1. Supporting evidence is absent 2. Supporting evidence is minimal or misapplied 3. Supporting evidence is adequate in nature and application 4. Supporting evidence is strong and appropriately applied 5. Supporting evidence is conclusive and applied in a sophisticated fashion IDEAS 1. Ideas are largely incorrect 2. Ideas represent an adequate summary of other thinkers� views on the subject 3. Ideas represent a strong summary of other thinkers� views but show little original thought 4. Ideas show some sophisticated, creative or new ideas 5. Ideas are consistently sophisticated and creative WRITING 1. A large number of grammar, punctuation and style errors are present 2. A fair number of grammar, punctuation and style errors are present 3. Some grammar, punctuation OR stylistic errors are present 4. Very few grammar, punctuation or style problems are present 5. No significant grammar, punctuation or style problems are present Once all selected papers are assessed, the CTW Ambassador will aggregate all of the performance measures and draft an assessment report based on these findings. The CTW Ambassador will then convene a faculty meeting at which faculty can discuss ways to improve the rubrics, alter CTW instruction and find other ways to improve the teaching of critical thinking and writing in Religious Studies. [96] Data Gathering [97] Each faculty member will be trained in conjunction with the CTW ambassador and CTW liaison from the college of health and humans sciences. The professor for each CTW course will send the RT CTW Ambassador the total score, including progressing comments on all assignments. These scores and comments will be held in a database to further assess the student at a later date. The data from both courses will be compared with: 1. National Certification Exam given by the National Board for Respiratory Care in spring semester of senior year. 2. Exit exam, National Registry Exam given by National Board for Respiratory Care All data can be reported to CTW program. [98] Data Gathering [99] We plan to develop a case grading sheet which we will hand out at the beginning of the semester. We do do an immediate case and the students will turn in their exercise. These results will be recorded and used as the base case against which the initial scores for subsequent cases will be judged. We will use the reporting system developed by the CTW group so the data are accumulated as the semester progresses. [100] Data Gathering [101] At the end of each academic year (Spring semester), the CTW Ambassador will create an annual assessment report which will list the CTW courses, learning objectives, assignment descriptions, rubric scores, grades and/or other learning outcome measures, and other qualitative information that informs how the CTW objectives have been met. The assessment report will be presented to the BCC for review. Based upon the results of the report, the BCC, with the CTW Ambassador, will provide recommendations to the instructor to strengthen or sustain the critical writing elements within the course. A summary of the CTW annual report and BCC responses will be reported to the full faculty in the subsequent Fall semester. The CTW Ambassador will submit the final report, with any recommended changes, to the General Education Subcommittee and WeaveOnline. [102] Data Gathering [103] Instructors in CTW courses will fill out an assessment sheet on each student's performance at the end of each course, in which they will evaluate students on each CTW assignment utilizing the criteria mentioned above: Students will be assessed in terms of how well they are able, through their writing: to demonstrate their understanding of sociological research reports/articles/books/theories; to analyze and interpret these research reports/articles/books/theories; and to use results of their analyses to formulate new research questions and/or to extend analyses in new directions. [104] Data Gathering [105] In order to gather and assess our students� engagement in critical thinking through writing, we will collect the final, post-revision, papers in each of these classes, as well as a sample of the weekly papers. The undergraduate committee will assess these papers according to the following rubrics; the core faculty will then discuss the assessment results. These rubrics will operate on a 5 point scale, ranging from excellent to poor. For 3010: Students will: 1) identify and analyze main points and theoretical arguments in their readings for class, as shown in their weekly papers 2) demonstrate knowledge of theoretical perspectives, in both weekly and final papers 3) demonstrate writing skills through their ability to organize material, provide sufficient evidence, and articulate a coherent thesis in their final papers For 4920/4950: Students will 1) demonstrate writing skills through their ability to organize material, provide sufficient evidence, and articulate a coherent thesis, in their final papers 2) demonstrate knowledge of and ability to use appropriate theoretical perspectives 3) apply interdisciplinary women�s studies knowledge and skills to a particular project, such as the final paper 4) connect what they have learned to lived experiences; in other words, demonstrate the implications of their project beyond the university, as shown through their papers I will then aggregate the rubric scores for the department, list the specific descriptions of assignments, and present examples of excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor papers. This information will prove useful for us, the core faculty, to meet and discuss how we can improve the assignments, the rubrics, or anything else we deem necessary. [89] 
At the end of each semester, faculty teaching CTW courses will rate the research projects of a random sample of students across three dimensions of critical thinking skills and four dimensions of integrative writing. These learning goals for critical thinking and writing have been adapted from the American Psychological Association's Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major and from Writing Across the Curriculum standards. Each dimension of critical thinking and integrative writing mechanics will be rated on a 6-point scale taken from Washington State's critical thinking rubric. For the critical thinking rubric, scores will be averaged across the various elements of each dimension. This scale spans three categories of skills - emerging (1-2), developing (3-4), and mastering (5-6). Instructors will also be asked to provide examples of assignments they consider to be in the emerging, developing and mastering ranges. Instructors of each of the department�s 12 CTW sections per semester will send their quantitative and qualitative CTW data to Chris Henrich, who will compile all of the quantitative ratings into a master data file and conduct descriptive statistical analyses on them. The department's goals for the intermediate course (Psyc 3530) are that there be statistically significant growth in CTW skills over the semester and that by the end of the semester, the majority of students will score in the 'developing' range. The goal of the senior capstone CTW course (Psyc 4000 or Psyc 4800) is that by the end of the semester more students will fall into the 'mastering' range, compared to ratings for Psyc 3530. In this way, learning outcome scores for Psyc 3530 will serve as a baseline for assessing change in students by the end of the senior CTW courses. In these comparisons, senior CTW outcomes will be compared with Psyc 3530 outcomes from the previous year in hopes of capturing growth in the same cohort of students. These ratings of students' engagement in critical thinking through writing will be reported through the Weave annual learning outcomes reports for the CTW courses. Examples of assignments flagged as emerging, developing, and mastering will be shared and discussed with the faculty and used for future CTW training sessions for faculty. Each year the UPC will also discuss possible revisions to the CTW courses and assessment rubric.
89