General Education Assessment Global Awareness 2015-2016

Global Awareness GEO Students will demonstrate understanding and awareness of issues related to, and consequences of, the growing global interdependence of diverse societies by integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines. Students will describe how social, cultural, political, and economic values and norms interact. 1. Recognize the value and significance of artistic and religious expressions in various world cultures. 2. Articulate the values and beliefs that influence humans in seeking identity and meaning within their culture. 3. Describe the impact of global interdependence on local cultures including those within the United States. 4. Identify the origin of events that have led to contemporary global conflict, competition, and cooperation. 5. Demonstrate awareness and knowledge of the economic forces that have led to the interdependence of national economies and the imbalance of distribution of wealth. 6. Demonstrate knowledge of the impact of global interdependence on the natural world. AssessmentGenEdOutcome as written in database 3. Global Awareness: Describe global interdependence and local cultures 4. Global Awareness: Know history of global conflict and cooperation 2. Global Awareness: Recognize values and beliefs 5. Global Awareness: Evaluate economic interdependence / wealth distribution 6. Global Awareness: Understand global environmental issues 1. Global Awareness: Appreciate artistic and religious expressions

Demographics (193 responses analyzed) Age – 77% less than 25 years Sex – 43% female, 52% male, 5% unknown 35% were international students 66% started college at SCC, and 30% transferred in Race/Ethnicity Age ranged from 15 to 58. Most students were aged 19 or less (total 118) Seems like too many minors. In B564, 494/6209 (7.95%) were under the age of 18, whereas our sample has 59/199=29.6%

Student scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Evidence of student learning ranged from none to substantial Scores ranged from 1 – 10 (out of 12) The average score was 5.5 or minimal (SD = 2.1) A non US culture was mentioned by 149 students (77%) The students own culture was mentioned by 107 students (55%) Gave students credit for mentioning a non-US culture and their own culture only if BOTH faculty rated it as such

Distribution of scores

Cumulative credits Cumulative credits earned Cumulative credits earned by quarters attended Updated for only 193 students included in the analysis

Analysis After Opening Week

Correlation with Cumulative Credits r = .027, ns

GA2 Courses NURS 252 - Nursing and Health Promotion Practicum GA2 Intensity Course Count None 581 Low 358 High 102 Low Intensity High Intensity HIIM 170 - Legal Aspects of Health Care This course provides an introduction to legal concepts, court functions, and legal practices related to health care practitioners. DRMA 156 - Acting, Writing, Directing for the Camera I Discussion of films in terms of cinematic styles, acting and screenplay structure along with exercises in acting, directing, writing and filming of original productions NURS 252 - Nursing and Health Promotion Practicum Nursing practicum in ambulatory and community settings with focus on use of nursing process and promoting health in vulnerable populations experiencing disparities POLS&203 - International Relations This class examines how nations interact in a globalized world.

Correlation with GA2 courses Note: Counted courses that students passed with at least a 2.0 GA2 Low Intensity (p = .036, r = .166) GA2 High Intensity (p = ns, r = .05) Before opening week, GA2 intensity variables erroneously counted all courses taken, not just GA2. Be sure that highest low intensity is 26. SPSS data not corrected, but Tableau is. (Tableau gives stats.)

Correlation with GA2 courses GA2 Low Intensity (p = .036, r = .166) Controlling for other factors Age and Cumulative Credits Earned, which are highly correlated with GA2 counts (p < .01, r = .21) Don’t have record of running this, likely didn’t save SPSS file. Use excel file GA2 after opening week

Similar trends with GA2 – high intensity

Examined data based on questions from Opening Week Resident looks interesting, but turns out not significant (ME or Int.) Pathway is interesting if include other variables, so marginal result

Looking at other measures Correlated with Ave Rating Mentioning a non-US culture Mentioning your own culture Sex Correlated with GA2 Classes- Low Intensity Age Group Cumulative Credits Earned Kind of Student

Building a model summary Step-wise model shows mentioning a Non-US culture and your own culture related to better ratings, F(2,145) = 10.1, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .11 Own Culture B = .486, p = .004 & Non-US Culture = .532, p = .008 Note: Student received credit for mentioning culture only if both raters indicated the student mentioned it. Using enter method, sex doesn’t play a role, but additional factors contributing to better scores include lower cumulative credits, being a work force student, and taking more classes that assess GA2 (low intensity), F(9,147) = 4.2 If use GA2 – high intensity, then only kind of student matters Lets look at this further…

Building a model, a closer look Step-wise model shows mentioning a Non-US culture and your own culture related to better ratings ANOVA indicates there is a significant interaction. Student ratings are lower if they don’t mention a non-US culture or their own culture No Yes No Yes Non-US Culture Ave. Ratings 6 4 2 Own Culture This isn’t surprising. Importantly, scores still not reaching moderate evidence Step-wise regression: F(2,145) = 10.1, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .11 Own Culture B = .486, p = .004 Non-US Culture = .532, p = .008 F(1,189) = 4.76, p = .03. (Main Effects, ns)

Building a model, lousy effect sizes Only a half point increase each for mentioning a Non-US or your own culture. About 1/6 of a point for taking a class that assesses GA2 (low intensity) Mentioning culture together with taking more GA2 low intensity classes mediates effects kind of student and cumulative credits earned Model accounts for 18.3% of the variance (Adj. R2) F(5,159) = 8.141, p < .001

Summary Our study worked! But the results aren’t impressive… Overall students presented only minimal evidence of learning GA2 The average score was 5.5 (SD = 2.1) out of 12. Further, 27% of students (53/193) presented moderate or substantial evidence. No students received a score above 10. Ratings related significantly to mentioning culture (either the student’s own culture, a non-US culture, or both), but students who mentioned culture still only showed minimal evidence of learning. Our study shows students aren’t learning GA2 well, and they need to take a substantial amount of classes to show moderate or substantial evidence of learning This evidence supports a need for change How should we act?