1. TRCC TAP Course Vetting: What we have learned so far
Sarah Selke, FIRC member, chair of TRCC TAP Task Force
Michael Stutz, co-chair of General Education Committee
Sarah then Mike

2. Overview Evolution of the vetting process Criteria for Vetting
Assessment of TAP competencies
Mike

3. Phase One (AY14-15) Vetting of Designated Competencies
Begins in department/program
Completed application
General Education committee reviews preliminary designations
Gen Ed recommendation & original departmental application are forwarded to Curriculum Committee
Curriculum Committee approves designation
Sarah covers this part
Took place during AY

4. Challenge 1 CSC 108 Introduction to Programming
Submitted by member of Technologies Department
Vetted for Scientific Reasoning
Application was also reviewed by Science Department
Sarah

5. Revised Process I
If application originates from faculty member outside of department traditionally associated with competency . . .
Application is forwarded to that department for review
Additional documentation may be requested
Syllabus
Sample assignments
Sarah: Spring 2015

6. Revised Process II
Recommended that faculty member submitting application attends General Education Committee and presents application in person
Artifact for assessment (copy of assignment) is required as part of original application
Sarah: AY revision

7. Revised Process III
In the spring of 2015 the General Education Committee created a set of criteria to be used when determining if a course should be considered for a particular competency.
Sarah:

8. Phase Two (AY15-16) Vetting of Embedded Competencies
Written Communication III
Ethics
Continued Learning/Information Literacy
Modification of the “Gateway Model”
Embedded outcomes are linked to some designated competencies
Sarah: This was the major project of the Gen Ed Committee in AY

9. Embedded Competency Map
Ex. Historical Knowledge/Understanding courses must also teach and assess:
Outcomes 10 and 11 from Ethics
Outcomes 1, 2, 3 & 4 from Written Communication
See handout for complete map of embedded competencies
Sarah

10. Criteria for Vetting - application
TRCC application is a modification of GCC’s application
In application, faculty must demonstrate that course objectives align with TAP outcomes
See handout
TRCC TAP Competency Designation Form
Sarah

11. Challenge 2 CSC 224 Java Programming 2
Vetted for Critical Analysis and Logical Thinking
Course outcomes seem to fit TAP objectives, but how will course be assessed?
Rubrics seem geared toward written artifacts
Mike

12. Criteria for Designating a Competency (Guidelines for Faculty)
Is the entire competency form completed; including course description, course content, course outcomes and assignments?
Is there a substantive amount of teaching/learning of the subject matter relevant to the competency? (Needs to comprise at least 2/3 of the course)
Mike

13. Criteria for Designating a Competency (Guidelines for Faculty)
Are there assignments related to the competency? How many? How much assignments time (for the semester) is devoted to this/these assignments?
Is the attached model assignment appropriate to the competency?
Mike

14. Criteria for Designating a Competency (Guidelines for Faculty)
Would the absence of the material/assignments relevant to the competency substantially alter the course?
If the competency is outside of the submitting faculty member’s primary field, was a discipline expert for a field within the competency’s primary area consulted in drafting the form? Do they endorse the competency designation?
Mike

15. Observations/Trends
Traditional disciplinary boundaries did not preclude a course from being vetting for a TAP competency
CSC 108 and CSC 224 are two examples
Chemistry courses vetted for Quantitative Reasoning
Spanish courses vetted for Social Phenomena
10% of vetted courses fall outside of traditional boundaries (16 out of 160)
Mike

16. Observations/Trends
No rule about the number of competencies a course can cover
However, most faculty only apply for one or two competencies per course
Rubrics are not required for the initial vetting process
Used for assessment
Used for secondary review of a course form
Is the second bullet true? Or doesn’t our Case Study imply that we did consider the rubric when evaluating Java I

17. Assessment
TRCC has adopted the TAP competencies as our Gen Ed competencies
TRCC has a robust General Education assessment program
Artifacts are collected via Digication
E-portfolio platform
Every faculty member teaching a TAP course must have students upload an artifact to Digication every semester

18. Assessment Each academic year, two competencies are evaluated
Artifacts are randomly selected from the pool of artifacts stored in Digication
A team of 3-5 faculty scores the artifacts using the TAP rubrics
Our assessment process will be the Quality Control for our course vetting process

19. TRCC Multi-year Assessment Cycle
AY – Oral Communication, Historical Knowledge and Understanding
AY – Scientific Reasoning, Scientific Knowledge and Understanding
AY – Social Phenomenon and Understanding, Appreciation of the Aesthetic Dimensions of Humankind

20. Challenge 3
Designing one assessment tool (assignment) that includes all of the outcomes of a TAP competency OR
Managing an assessment process that requires multiple assessments for a competency
Do we want to include Terry’s proposal since we know we can’t really do it? Is there something better to say here?

21. Questions? Sarah Selke, Associate Professor of Biology
Michael Stutz, Associate Professor of Communication