1. Giovanni Sosa, Ph.D. Chaffey College RP Conference 2013

2. The Standards (pg.1) Instructional programs, student support services, and library and learning support services facilitate the achievement of the institution's stated student learning outcomes

3. Improving Institutional Effectiveness (IB) The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and makes changes to improve student learning…

4. Improving Institutional Effectiveness (IB) …[it] demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes…

5. SLO Assessment is a continual process! Criteria Means of Assessment Summary of Evidence Learning Outcomes Statement Use of Results

6.  Adopted Institutional SLOs ◦ Communication ◦ Critical Thinking & Information Competency ◦ Community/Global Awareness & Responsibility ◦ Personal, Academic, and & Career Development http://www.chaffey.edu/general_info/competencies.s html

7. Facione (1990)  46 experts were convened to discuss role of CT in educational assessment and instruction  Identified Core CT skills and Sub-Skills

8. 1) Interpretation – To comprehend/express meaning of wide variety of experiences 2) Analysis – Identify inferential relationships among statements/concepts 3) Evaluation – Assess the credibility of statements; assess logical strength of inferential statements/concepts 4) Inference – Form hypotheses

9. 5) Explanation – To state results of one’s reasoning; 6) Self-Regulation – Self-reflection of one’s views to question or confirm reasoning

10.  MSLQ (Pintrich, McKeachie, & Lin, 1987) ◦ Developed in process of studying how to make students more efficient learners  What does the CT assessment specifically measure?

11.  CT assessment found to be statistically associated to course performance (r =.15) Success Not Successful Total High CT5742100 Low CT4257100 Total100 200

12.  Pertains to issues of cultural diversity, human rights, and prejudice reduction – both within national borders and across national borders  Knowledge that individual possesses of other cultures (Cognitive)  The extent to which individual empathizes with values of other cultures (Affective)  Willingness to take stand on cultural issues (Participatory)

13.  Inspired by Global Perspective Institute (Braskamp et al., 2011) ◦ Holistic Human Development:  Cognitive domain (“Whatdo I know?”)  Intrapersonal domain (“”Who am I?”)  Interpersonal domain (“How do I relate to others?”)  What does our Global Awareness assessment specifically measure?

14.  1907 Total Responses  78 Courses  33 Departments ◦ Chemistry (N = 199) ◦ English (N = 195) ◦ Theatre (N =159) ◦ Cinema (N = 154) ◦ CIS (N = 137) ◦ Economics (N = 102)  Voluntary Participation

15. Sample N = 1,907 District N = 56,216 Transferable to UC/CSU69.8%54.8% Transferable to CSU13.2%14.5% Not Transferable16.9%30.7% Comparison with District Data (SP12) Transfer Status

16. Sample N = 1,907 District N = 52,216 Face-to-face 96.5%94.0% Hybrid 3.5%2.2% Online0.0%3.8% Comparison with District Data (SP12) Distance Learning

17. Sample N = 1,907 District N = 52,216 Basic Skills 1.8%16.0% Not Basic Skills 98.2%84.0% Comparison with District Data (SP12) Basic Skills

18. Sample N = 1,791 District N = 18,434 Cum GPA 2.922.52 Units Attempted 42.7834.42 Units Completed 40.8031.32 Comparison with District Data (SP12) Performance Indicators

19. Sample N = 1,791 District N = 51,526 Success Rate84.470.53 Withdrawal Rate3.311.1 Comparison with District Data (SP12) Performance Indicators Sample N = 1,673 District N = 43,767 GPA Converted Grade2.882.61

21. CT LevelRangePercentile Low0 – 19≤24 th Percentile Medium20 – 2825-74 th Percentile High29 - 35≥75 th Percentile

22. Variables Examined: ◦ First Generation Status ◦ Gender ◦ Age Range ◦ Parents’ Education ◦ Ethnicity ◦ UC/CSU Transfer vs. Non-Transferable

23. Variables Examined: ◦ Success Rate ◦ Withdrawal Rate ◦ GPA Converted Grades ◦ Units Attempted ◦ Units Completed ◦ Cum. GPA ◦ Assessment Tests (Reading Comp/Sentence Skills/ Math)

24. CT Level Number of Students Mean Units Attempted Low44644.29 Medium96241.26 High49644.79 *d =.11 - Medium level vs. Low level d =.13 – Medium level vs. High level

25. CT Level Number of Students Mean Units Earned Low44642.76 Medium96239.06 High49642.66 *d =.13 for comparisons of Medium level with either Low or High

26. CT Level Number of Students Mean Cum. GPA Low4462.98 Medium9622.87 High4962.94 *d =.13 - Medium level vs. Low level d =.09 - Medium level vs. Low level

28. GA LevelRangePercentile Low0 – 25≤24 th Percentile Medium26 – 2825-74 th Percentile High29 - 30≥75 th Percentile

29. Variables Examined: ◦ First Generation Status ◦ Gender ◦ Age Range ◦ Parents’ Education ◦ Ethnicity ◦ UC/CSU Transfer vs. Non-Transferable

30. GA Level 19 or Younger 20 to 2425 or Older Total Low14920996454 Medium249384204837 High133265215613 Total5318585151904 *r =.14

31. Variables Examined: ◦ Success Rate ◦ Withdrawal Rate ◦ GPA Converted Grades ◦ Units Attempted ◦ Units Completed ◦ Cum. GPA ◦ Assessment Tests (Reading Comp/Sentence Skills/ Math)

32. GA Level Number of Students Mean Units Attempted Low45439.34 Medium83741.85 High61346.92 *d =.09 – Low vs. Medium d =.27 – Low vs. High d =.17 – Medium vs. High

33. GA Level Number of Students Mean Units Earned Low45437.37 Medium83739.76 High61344.95 *d =.09 – Low vs. Medium d =.28 – Low vs. High d =.19 – Medium vs. High

34. GA Level Number of Students Mean Sentence Skills Low38481.73 Medium69883.98 High49786.40 *d =.11 – Low vs. Medium d =.24 – Low vs. High d =.13 – Medium vs. High

35. Low GAHigh GATotal High CT120217334 Low CT11766186 Total237283520 r =.15

36.  Enhancing institutional effectiveness ◦ Self-reflective dialogue  Utilized assessments serve as reliable tools for measuring CT and GA ◦ But may not adequately measure all aspects of corresponding competency  More assessment of foundation/online courses  Implications of units attempted/earned & GPA

37.  Random sampling for Spring 2013  Inclusion of two additional core competencies for Spring 2013  Division-wide assessment during Fall 2012  Application to specific course level assessment  First Annual Student Services Poster Session

38. Braskamp, L. A., D. C. Braskamp, K. C. Merrill, & M. E. Engberg (2011). Global Perspective Inventory. Global Perspective Institute, Inc., http://gpi.central.edu http://gpi.central.edu Clark, V. (2004). Students’ global awareness and attitudes to internationalism in a world of cultural convergence. Journal of Research in International Education, 3, 51-70. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association (pgs. 13 -19). Newark, DE. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC.