College: Mike Curb College of Arts, Media and Communications (MCCAMC) Submitted by: Dr. Lynette K. Henderson (Art Dept.) 1. Please check the statements that best describe assessment practices and activities in your college for the academic year 2013-­‐2014. X_A faculty member was selected to serve as the college assessment coordinator (EXISTING). X_A college assessment committee was developed (LIAISONS MEET AS A GROUP). ___Student learning assessment was discussed with chairs at Administrative Council meetings. X_ Student learning assessment was presented or discussed at a college wide meeting with faculty. ___A college assessment database and/or assessment website was made available. ___A college assessment plan was developed or updated if already developed. ___One or more college level student learning outcomes (CSLOs) were reviewed. ___One or more college level student learning outcomes (CSLOs) were assessed. ___Describe Other______________________________________________________________ 2. If you have college-­‐level learning outcomes, please list here or attach them to this report. Please note any which are new. This year, previously developed college learning outcomes were removed from the MCCAMC college website by the Associate Dean’s office. These outcomes are not currently in use by the college and have not been widely adopted by all departments. At this time, MCCAMC deems department program assessment to be the most effective way to achieve concrete results that may affect curriculum and program modifications. 3. If you have a college assessment committee, please answer the following questions. a. No committee b. How were members selected for the college assessment committee? Although we do not function as a working committee for college-­‐level assessment, all department liaisons in the MCCAMC meet as a group (details below). c. How often did the college assessment committee meet? Twice last year, once each semester. College Annual Assessment Reporting Form Assessment related activities during 2013-­‐2014 2 d. What are the objectives or purposes of the college assessment committee? (Do you focus on program level assessment, college level assessment or both? Do you provide mentoring to new assessment liaisons?) All department liaisons meet with the college director and the MCCAMC Associate Dean, as a group. We provide updates on college and university assessment, and discuss issues related to each department’s activities including topics such as reviewing the language of SLOs, methods of assessment, rubrics and norming, finding resources for information, and ways of achieving (or circumventing the lack of) faculty buy-­‐in. The college director then works with liaisons individually throughout the year to assist in creating and implementing their instruments. In the past I have been invited to Theater for the purpose of sitting in on a norming session and to talk with the (then) assessment committee on development of activities. Each semester, liaisons are required to attend 1 group college meeting (2 per yr), 1 individual meeting (2 per yr), with college director), attend university meetings as often as possible (2+ per yr), and the end-­‐of-­‐year retreat, as schedule allows. Some of the liaisons attend all the University meetings, one person has attended Fullerton’s conference twice. These numbers have been worked out to create the least interference with liaison assessment activities, and to provide the most assistance, and may vary from year-­‐to-­‐year. During the writing of end-­‐of year reports, I have asked liaisons to send their drafts to me for feedback on detail and clarity, before submitting to the university. At this time I am able to ask questions regarding the analysis and interpretation of results, which often generates discussion about what to do for the following year. Such discussion might result in additional explanation in the report, but not always. Examples of conversations with liaisons while looking at a draft report are effective norming methods, ways of utilizing rubric discussions before, during and after scoring, or scoring methods that do not ignore outlier scores. The liaisons do not always have control of these assessment processes, such as if the scoring is done separately and the scorers are not available afterwards for debriefing; this is often the case with scorers from outside industries, for example. Faculty other than the liaison and department assessment committees often conduct other kinds of assessment activities. CTVA for example, conducted two projects in 2013-­‐14 directed by two different faculty members, which resulted in two separate reports. I provided feedback on one of them (J. Krantz). In the Art department, there has in the past been hybrid and online assessment conducted individually by Art History faculty. In that case the liaison received the information College Assessment Report is due Tuesday October 28, 2014. Please submit as a PDF attachment to the Director of Academic Assessment, Jack Solomon, at [email protected] . College Annual Assessment Reporting Form Assessment related activities during 2013-­‐2014 3 and reported on it, however the assessment committee was not part of developing or implementing the project. The Art History faculty member is continuing to gather data and conduct assessment on the hybrid vs. online instruction again this year. It is very useful to have more than one type of assessment going on, based on interest and need, in degree options or areas of concentration, for example. Ideally, faculty who conduct various assessment activities informs the liaison so that information may be included in the year-­‐end reports, which in turn can be provided to all faculty members and the chair of the department, for discussion about the programs. In addition to that benefit, the archived material is available to new liaisons, reviewers or accreditors. I will be reiterating this point to the liaisons this year. e. If you assessed one or more of your college level student learning outcomes (CSLOs), please respond to the following questions. Not applicable – we did not conduct college-­‐level assessment. a. What CSLO(s) did you assess and how did you assess it? Include course alignments as well as use of direct and/or indirect assessments. N/A b. What were the findings or results of your assessment study? N/A c. How will the results or evidence be used to improve program quality? N/A f. Were any of the Five Big Learning Competencies (critical thinking, written communication, oral communication, quantitative analysis, and information competency) assessed at the college level this year? If yes, what were the results and what are you planning to do with the results? The answer to this question is a summary of each of the departments’ assessment activities, as reported by the departments. ART: The Department of Art conducted two assessment projects related to Art PSLO 1 (Basic Skills) and PSLO 3 (Critical Thinking), that addressed two of the “Big Five Competencies” – 1) Critical Thinking, and 2) Written Communication. Project 1 Critical Thinking: Students were asked to do a formal analysis of an artwork by using terms related to the elements of art and principles of design, followed by a written explanation of how they are used in artwork. Students were also asked how these principles and elements are used to communicate a message, concept or idea conveyed College Assessment Report is due Tuesday October 28, 2014. Please submit as a PDF attachment to the Director of Academic Assessment, Jack Solomon, at [email protected] . College Annual Assessment Reporting Form Assessment related activities during 2013-­‐2014 4 within the artwork. Written Communication: Students were asked to write a clear explanation of each of the above items using applicable art vocabulary. Project 2 Critical Thinking: Students were asked to create an artwork using digital software that focused on concepts and visual characteristics found in the genre of Surrealism. Students then were instructed to explain how those concepts and characteristics were formally used to compose their own artwork. Students were also asked to verbally describe how they used these concepts and characteristics to communicate the message or idea conveyed within their artwork. Written Communication: Students were asked to write a clear explanation of each of the above items using applicable art vocabulary. COMMUNICATIONS: Through assessment of their PSLO 3 (Communication and Culture) the Department of Communications addressed two of the “Big Five Competencies” – 1) Critical Thinking, and 2) Written Communication. Communications’ PSLO 3 assessment instrument, a set of prompts, was administered to 25 different (listed below) sections of students, and “concerned students’ ability to explain the relationship between communication and culture.” “…the [assessment] team developed a direct instrument in the form of an assignment that required students to analyze a cultural jamming image and demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between communication and culture.” Procedures used included “assessment software to administer the assignment to students in the identified courses. Students received an electronically-­‐generated email that included a link to the assignment instructions, directing students to the image and then respond to the prompt either online or by attaching a document. …the responses were reviewed to ensure [they]…addressed the questions presented.” CTVA: CTVA conducted two different assessment projects that each addressed all of the “Big Five Competencies” – 1) Critical Thinking, and 2) Oral Communication, 3) Written Communication, 4) Quantitative Literacy, and 5) Information Literacy. TV Option: Assessment for the TV option addressed 1 through 4 of the Big Five SLOs, through a 50-­‐question multiple-­‐choice exam given to CTVA 240 and CTVA 442 students. This assessment established a baseline for students beginning the option, and information on what they gained through the upper division program. This was cross-­‐sectional within the same semester. In addition to this exam, another assessment utilized scores from a panel of industry professionals who function as judges to evaluate 10-­‐12 productions that are shown to the public. The scores from this assessment are compared to previous years to gauge performance in the program over time. College Assessment Report is due Tuesday October 28, 2014. Please submit as a PDF attachment to the Director of Academic Assessment, Jack Solomon, at [email protected] . College Annual Assessment Reporting Form Assessment related activities during 2013-­‐2014 5 Multimedia Production Option: The Multimedia option was a cross-­‐sectional assessment project that addressed all five of the Big Five learning competencies. The instrument was a 70-­‐question multiple choice exam, given to students at the beginning and end of the option program. JOURNALISM: Assessment in Journalism addressed two of the “Big Five Competencies” – 1) Critical Thinking, and 3) Written Communication. The SLOs referred to below are for Journalism, with explanation for each below as to how they address the Big Five: SLO 1. Students will be able to report and write for diverse publics, using proper grammar and punctuation, word usage and spelling, sentence and storytelling structures across multiple journalistic formats. SLO 3. Students will be able to think critically, creatively and independently. SLO 4. Students will demonstrate an understanding of professional ethical principles and work ethically in pursuit of truth, accuracy, fairness, and diversity. SLO 1: For Assessment A, two surveys—pre and post (CSUN IRB-­‐approved)—were given to students in two different JOUR 110 iPad classes in Spring ’14. For Assessment B, AP Style scores were analyzed and compared using data from an experimental group (JOUR 110 Fall ‘13) that was not required to make flashcards using an application and a control group (JOUR 110 Spring ’14) that was required to make the flashcards. For Assessment C, a rubric was designed to measure writing skills using press releases written by students in two different JOUR 341 classes in Spring ’14. SLOs 3 & 4: For Assessment D, a rubric was designed to measure critical thinking and ethics skills displayed in student responses in two different online ethics forums in two separate JOUR 110 classes. Music: Music assessment addressed one of the “Big Five Competencies” – 4) Quantitative Literacy. The Music SLOs that addressed #4 of the Big Five was their #3 for graduate music theory, #7 for undergraduate music composition. Note that on the Music report, the liaison cited this SLO as matching a MCCAMC college SLO; as mentioned above, the college SLOs are not in use at this time, and have been removed from the MCCAMC college website. Assessment of the above was cross-­‐sectional. Music graduate SLO #3 was assessed through an entrance and exit exam. Music undergraduate SLO #7 was assessed through an entrance project and final project. College Assessment Report is due Tuesday October 28, 2014. Please submit as a PDF attachment to the Director of Academic Assessment, Jack Solomon, at [email protected] . College Annual Assessment Reporting Form Assessment related activities during 2013-­‐2014 6 Theater: Theater assessment was not conducted last year and therefore did not address any of the Big Five; please see the Theater report for more details. College Assessment Report is due Tuesday October 28, 2014. Please submit as a PDF attachment to the Director of Academic Assessment, Jack Solomon, at [email protected] .