College Event

Based on the evaluations of prior Assessment Happens (AH), the SAAC co-chairs (on advice of the committee) developed and facilitated the spring 2016 AH. Suggestions that were implemented were:

Based on the evaluations of prior Assessment Happens (AH), the SAAC co-chairs (on advice of the committee) implemented several changes to the Fall 2015 AH, including: 

Every anthropology class starts with an explanation of anthropology and the fact that there are four main sub-fields in anthropology (i.e. Archaeology, Cultural, Linguistics, Physical.)  Each anthropologist specializes in one of these fields.  At the beginning of the semester each field is discussed, explained, and students are encouraged to think of examples of each.  After understanding the fields, they are asked which of the fields they think they would like best.

The process for selecting  All-USA Scholarship recipients is:  Step 1-Faculty committee scoring of essays; top 5 essays move forward to application process. 2013 scorers indicated they'd have preferred a more specific, helpful rubric to improve rater reliability.  In 2014 it was replaced by the EMCC Writing Rubric which produced distinction between essays, however, scorers were dissatisfied with criteria that didn't account satisfactorily for content and voice.  Thus, 6-Trait Writing Rubric will be used in 2015.

The humannequin project connects academic research with political art on specific gender issues. Students must research their gender issues and provide information from credible, academic sources.  SOC 212 students participated in the Information Literacy Assessment in 2011 and then again in 2014. The four areas in the assessment were (1) framing the research question, (2) accessing sources, (3) evaluation of information, and (4) create original work. The rubric created by the SAAC committee is attached as well as the spreadsheet with results (created by Terry Meyer and James Waugh).

A survey was completed (N=147) for the One Billion Rising Event. This is a sample of the percentages for responses of Agree and Strongly Agree.  Please see attachment. (1). One purpose of this event was to raise awareness of the global issue of violence against women. My understanding of the global issue of violence against women is greater after attending this event. 88% (2). Another purpose of this event was to encourage a better understanding of how individual action can bring about change in the larger culture and in personal lives.

Students continuously give us positive feedback on campus events. Love Your Body Week is assessed with a survey for the week long series of events. Self reflection questions focus on learning from the event, interest in going to other eventes, interest in learning about other social issues, interest in being active in the community, feeling open minded, and having resources on the social issues. If you examine the attachments, you will see results for the presentations, activitie,s and the outdoor event.

I administered a four question Pre-Post test in Spring 2012, Fall 2012 and Spring 2013.  The Pre-Post test is attached for your reference. In Sp12 and Fa12, students showed great improvement from Pre to Post test, however in Sp13, the percentage improvement from pre to post test dropped drastically.  Overall scores on the post test for 2012 were very high (see attached) and for Sp13 were low.  There were two main differences from last fall to this spring that contributed to the lower Pre-Post test results.

I made my course a hybrid like course, where students could learn online as well as in the class w some assignments. Here is a sample from a project given. Not your usual PED course.

The Humannequin Project includes an assessment each year which varies by topic. The 2013 assessment, rubric, and student scoresheet are attached. Each questions always focuses on Bloom's Taxonomy: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze,  Evaluate and Create.  Questions 4 and 6 have lower averages. These two areas need to be improved for the 2014 project. UPDATE: For 2014, the topic for the project was gender and language.

Students in EDU 230 questioned the extent to which discrimination exists at EMCC. They unanimously suggested this should be investigated. The author facilitated the process which included: survey creation, research into discrimination on college campuses, applying for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (and receiving it), and applying for the Student Conference (coincidentally about a month from the start of the project) and being accepted. Students went through ethical research (CITI) training.