Annual Assessment Report to the College 2011-12
College: Humanities
Department: ____________________________
Program: Liberal Studies
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the assessment office
and to the Associate Dean of your College by September 28, 2012. You may submit a separate report for
each program which conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: Tineke Scholten
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s) (optional)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the assessment plan and process this
year.
Liberal Studies is in the process of overhauling its Teacher Preparation Program. The restructuring
affects the core courses of the discipline, the specializations that students will be able to pursue, and the
course content of these specializations. New capstone courses have been developed for the 5 proposed
specializations that align with newly developed Core-SLOs and Specialization SLOs. The curriculum
modification is awaiting EPC approval this academic year. Until implementation of the new program is
underway, LRS’ annual assessment will continue to address the following set of SLOs that precede the
restructuring:
SLO 1: Students will acquire a breadth of knowledge across the range of disciplines included in the major and will
pursue greater depth in their area of specialization.
SLO2: Students will explore how knowledge across multiple disciplines can be connected.
SLO3: Students will develop the ability to formulate their own goals for continued learning and inquiry based on a
foundation of intellectual curiosity.
SLO4: Students will understand and appreciate the positive value and essential role of diversity.
SLO5: Students will be able to think critically and creatively.
SLO6: Students will be able to write and speak clearly, coherently, and thoughtfully.
SLO7: Students will be able to read, understand, and evaluate all forms of text.
For the academic year 2011-12, the program targeted SLO7 cf. its 5-year assessment plan. Data was
collected in three courses that are part of the “Literacy Scholars for the Future of Los Angeles”
specialization (LRS 333, 433 and CHS 480). The two instructors of LRS 333 and 433 used essay exams and
journal writings to assess the degree to which their students met the skills specified in the SLO with a
rubric designed to that purpose. The instructor of CHS 480 used 7 reading responses and applied a
rubric that addressed reading comprehension in a manner relevant to her class.
The students in the “Literacy Scholars for the Future of Los Angeles” program were chosen for this study
for the following reasons:
May 17, 2012
1. The three classes that make up this specialization specifically target literacy and thereby SLO7.
2. This specialization is also part of the new Teacher Preparation Program that is currently awaiting
approval.
3. The students taking these three courses largely overlap (although they do not form a perfect
cohort). In selecting this subset of LRS students, we hoped to compare performance in the fall
classes (LRS 333, 433) to that in the spring class (CHS480).
Two detailed reports describing the results of data collection and analysis were presented to the
Interdisciplinary Committee and its implications were discussed during a meeting in September 2012.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLO
assessed this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
SLO7: Students will be able to read, understand, and evaluate all forms of text.
2b. Does this learning outcome align with one of the following University Fundamental Learning
Competencies? (check any which apply)
Critical Thinking_______________x_____________________
Oral Communication________________________________
Written Communication_________x____________________
Quantitative Literacy________________________________
Information Literacy___________x_____________________
Other (which?)___________________________________
2c. What direct and indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
See also above. The students’ responses were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated with the help of
two rubrics; to illustrate, one of the rubrics evaluated the students’ abilities based on the following
criteria:
1. Evidenced careful reading of texts treating language and literacy.
2. Showed an ability to extract thesis statements from assigned readings
3. Identified distinctions between position papers and research reports
4. Effectively summarized the arguments in assigned readings
5. Made appropriate and relevant connections across readings
6. Discussed the implications for practice of assigned readings
7. Evaluated positions represented by the readings assigned
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally
(same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with
seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
While a pre-post comparison (comparing fall and spring semester students) was hoped for, this turned
out to be difficult, at least in a quantitative sense: Too small a sample, too short a time frame and the
fact that the assignments in the courses (although similar) were not identical, brought a quantitative,
May 17, 2012
longitudinal comparison out of reach. The performances of the students in each class were therefore
independently evaluated and quantified and subsequently informally compared.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the evidence was analyzed
and highlight important findings from collected evidence.
The findings from the two assessment reports that were prepared for the Interdisciplinary Committee
pointed to significant weaknesses, as reported by the instructors:
 For LRS 333, 433, the instructors noted that “[s]tudents fell between the lower level of ‘Met
well’ and upper level of ‘Met acceptably’” with aggregate scores ranging from 3.6-3.9. (‘Met
well’ = 4.25-3.76; ‘Met acceptably’= 3.75-2.)
 The 23 students that were assessed in two sections of CHS 480 “were not at an optimal level in
terms of their abilities to understand, interpret, evaluate, apply, and critically analyze course
readings … Even the highest scoring students still had significant weaknesses in their ability to
critically analyze and interpret text such as course readings.” The average score overall was 55
with a median score of 57. The average score of 55 translated to a 79% or a C+ average based
on overall rubric scores.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Were assessment results from previous years or from this
year used to make program changes in this reporting year?
The Interdisciplinary Committee discussed the results of the above studies. It was acknowledged that
our students (1) come into the program lacking the necessary skills to thoroughly comprehend much of
the assigned readings in the courses that they take and (2) that many students do not actually attempt
to read the materials that are assigned in their courses and that (3) reading skills should ideally be
developed in all classes irrespective of course content. The committee proposed to bring together
faculty teaching in the program for a workshop/meeting to share ideas on how to:
1. Provide stronger support when assigning readings. This was also suggested by the instructors of
the LSLA program. It would require “doing more in-depth modeling, guided reading, and
discussion of sample course readings with a focus on understanding, interpretation, evaluation,
and critical analysis.” (cf. CHS 480 report)
2. Make course readings an integral part of the learning experience through carefully crafted
prompts.
As mentioned under 1a, the Liberal Studies Program is overhauling its curriculum. Previous assessment
results have helped highlight weaknesses among LRS students in core competencies as expressed by the
University’s Fundamental Learning Competencies. Strengthening those skills is an important part of the
revised curriculum that is currently being proposed.
Type of change:
changes to course content/topics covered_____x _____________________________
course sequence________________________________________________________
addition/deletion of courses in program_________________x ____________
describe other academic programmatic changes___________ ___________
student support services__________________________________________________
revisions to program SLOs_________________x________________________________
assessment instruments___________________________________________________
describe other assessment plan changes______________________________________
All specializations in the proposed new LRS Teacher Preparation Program culminate in a Capstone class.
May 17, 2012
The program intends to develop an assessment model where performance on Capstone and Gateway
courses are compared relative to program specific and specialization specific SLOs.
Some programs assess multiple SLOs each year. If your program assessed an additional SLO, report the
process for that individual SLO below. If you need additional SLO charts, please cut & paste the empty
chart as many times as needed. If you did NOT assess another SLO, skip this section.
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan and/or 5-yr
assessment plan?
This year’s assessment activities follow the program’s 5-yr assessment plan. While still operating with
the ‘old’ SLOs that precede the proposed restructuring, the program has decided to focus its annual
assessment on the core competencies that are reflected in these SLOs and that will continue to be
relevant once the restructuring takes effect.
4. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
5. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or
describes assessment activities in your program? Please provide citation or discuss.
No.
May 17, 2012