Multi-State Collaborative
1

Susan Albertine
Vice President, Office of Diversity,
Equity, and Student Success, AAC&U
Faculty Engagement Subgroup, MSC
([email protected])

James Gubbins
Associate Professor - Salem State
University, Massachusetts
Faculty Engagement Subgroup, MSC
([email protected])
2

It is good for student learning.

It supports faculty engagement.

It strengthens programs.

It connects assessment to teaching and learning.
3

January 2010: Working group begins process of
developing a statewide system for assessing student
learning outcomes

October 2012: Statewide conference on Quantitative
Literacy

Spring 2013: First pilot study to test a model for statewide
assessment. The three learning outcomes: Critical
Thinking, Quantitative Literacy, and Written
Communication
4

Spring 2013 Massachusetts Pilot Study: Lessons learned
Faculty scorer: “I spent almost a whole day scoring the
quantitative literacy artifacts. It did not go well for multiple
reasons . . . many of the artifact[s] weren't appropriate for
this rubric (they were simple math quizzes).”

Fall 2014 Multistate Collaborative Pilot Study: Benefits
from Massachusetts’s experience
5

K-16 Teachers and administrators in Massachusetts have
devised a working definition of college readiness in
Mathematics

Quantitative Literacy VALUE Rubric has offered
Massachusetts faculty a starting point for understanding,
discussing, and assessing college-level quantitative literacy
6
Criteria
Levels
Performance
Descriptors
7
8
9

Second Criterion in the Quantitative Literacy Rubric:
Representation
◦ Ability to convert relevant information into various mathematical
forms (e.g., equations, graphs, diagrams, tables, words)

Third Criterion in the Quantitative Literacy Rubric:
Calculation
10
11
12
13
Criteria
Levels
Performance
Descriptors
14
15
16

Know where you want to go: What is the key outcome you want?

Consider how you might tweak an existing assignment to include that key outcome.

Consider how an assignment might contribute to a student’s grasp of the defined learning
outcome over time
◦ Analyze QL criteria to determine key components for a QL assignment in your field.
◦ Work backwards from a student artifact, preferably in a group, using the VALUE QL
rubric; consider the DQP for reference.

Assignments themselves may be arranged progressively or scaffolded across a course and
through a program.
◦ What activities can you identify to improve critical thinking and integrative learning?
◦ Can the assignment be used for more than one outcome?
◦ How can you help students gain QL capacity over time in your disciplinary context?

What are the types of assignments that will be most helpful for allowing students to
demonstrate competency and help them get ready for the days after graduation?
17

Collaborate

Think structurally

Plan beyond your discipline

Cultivate novice thinking

Ask students to talk about how they are learning
18
Additional MSC Webinars
 Sampling for the Pilot Study
May 21, 4-5pm (ET) and May 22, 4-5pm (ET)
 Multi-State Assessment: IRB & Student Consent
May 28, 5-6pm (ET) and June 3, 4-5pm (ET)
 VALUE Rubrics
Date and Time TBD
 Coding, Formatting, Submitting: Using Taskstream
Date and Time TBD (late summer)
Webinars will be recorded and posted to: http://www.sheeo.org/msc
Webinars already posted:
 Welcome to the MSC
 Pilot Study Overview
 Assignment Design Webinar
Questions?
19