Presentation on theme: "GE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AT CSU, CHICO: A Way Forward PROCESS, RESULTS, LESSONS LEARNED CHRIS FOSEN, RUTH GUZLEY, WILLIAM LOKER, MARGARET OWENS PRESENTED."— Presentation transcript:
GE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AT CSU, CHICO: A Way Forward PROCESS, RESULTS, LESSONS LEARNED CHRIS FOSEN, RUTH GUZLEY, WILLIAM LOKER, MARGARET OWENS PRESENTED AT AAC&U, 3/3/07
GE at CSU, Chico Constraints: State, System and Campus Core, Breadth, Upper Division Themes, 48 units Core: Oral Communication, Writing, Critical Thinking and Quantitative Reasoning (12 units) Breadth: Sciences (6), Humanities (9), Social Sciences (9), Life-long Learning (3) UDT: Cross-disciplinary view of topic areas (9) About 285 courses in GE curriculum
GE ASSESSMENT: Rationale, Structure and Process Need for Program (vs. course) assessment Mandate for Program assessment (EM-99-05, MOU)EM-99-05 MOU Existing structures: GEAC, AURA Goals of GE Program assessment: Participatory Outcomes based Unobtrusive (workload, budget, etc) Meaningful, Manageable, Sustainable
Coordinating Committee: AURA Chair, GEAC Chair, Dean Undergraduate Studies GEAC General Education Advisory Committee AURA All University Responsibility for Assessment Committee Task Force 1 (Writing), 2 (Oral Communication), 3 (Quantitative reasoning). Each Task Force has an AURA member, GEAC member, and an additional faculty member. Provost Organizational Structure for GE Assessment, 05-06
Who did What? Task Force Composition Task Force 1: Oral Communication (Phyllis Fernlund, AURA) Ruth Guzley, CMST, AURA, Chair Mitchell Johns, AGRI, GEAC Susan Avanzino, CMST Task Force 2: Written Communication (Bill Loker, Dean UED) Chris Fosen, ENGL, GEAC, Chair Sarah Blackstone, Dean HFA, AURA Sara Trechter, ENGL Task Force 3: Quantitative Reasoning (Don Alger, GEAC) Margaret Owens, Assoc. Dean NS, AURA, Chair Russ Mills, CIVL, GEAC Jack Ladwig, MATH
What did we do? Consult existing documents for guidance Consult faculty who teach GE to derive Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Consult faculty on creation of rubrics to measure SLOs Identify courses where SLOs are evidenced Identify assignments where SLOs could be measured
Writing Assessment From SLOs to Results …. Chris Fosen
First Steps Contacted faculty from a variety of areas and levels of GE GE writing requirement1500 words Derived SLOs from Executive Memorandum that governs GE Refined SLOs with help from GE faculty
Student Learning Outcomes, GE Writing Assessment CONTENT 1. Write texts that question, investigate and draw well- reasoned conclusions about ideas and issues based on the reading and analysis of sources appropriate to the subject and assignment. ORGANIZATION & ARGUMENTATION 2. Use organizational patterns (sequences of paragraphs and ideas), evidentiary support, and stylistic and word choices appropriate to the discipline and assignment. GRAMMAR & OTHER SURFACE FEATURES 3. Write papers that demonstrate proficiency in terms of grammar, syntax, punctuation and spelling, and which use a citation style consistent with the assignment and discipline.
Scoring LevelContentOrganization & Argumentation Grammar & Surface Features 3 Accomplished Writing shows evidence of deep engagement with intellectual material of course/discipline, imagination, and creativity. Few or no errors of fact or interpretation. Writing could be used as a model of how to fulfill the assignment. Writing flows smoothly from one idea to another. The reader can easily follow the claims and examples used to support the ideas expressed. The writers decisions about focus and organization facilitate reading. Writing is essentially error- free in terms of mechanics. Models the style and formatting appropriate to the assignment. Citation style clear and consistently applied. 2 Competent Content of text fulfills the assignment. Writing demonstrates engagement with intellectual and/or creative material of the course/discipline. Few errors of fact or interpretation Sequencing of ideas and transitions makes the writers points accessible. Examples developed and claims supported in most cases. The purpose and focus of the writing are clear, organization and tone achieve the purpose of the assignment. Minor errors, but paper follows normal conventions of spelling and grammar throughout. Appropriate conventions for style and format are used consistently. Sources documented. 1 Beginning Requirements of the assignment have not been fulfilled. Little/no evidence of engagement with material of the course/discipline. The paper reveals numerous errors of fact or interpretation. Writing lacks transitions and/or sequencing of ideas, making reading and understanding difficult. Examples and/or claims are weak or missing in many cases. Numerous errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure, other writing conventions that interfere with comprehension. Does not follow appropriate style and/or format. Source documentation is incomplete.
Brief Introduction to STEPS STEPS: Student Tracking, Evaluation and Portfolio System Student-built, faculty-led system Built on an Oracle database >100,000 lines of.Net, Oracle, HTML & other code User-friendly interface Beta tested at CSU, Chico & business schools Expanded use by other schools in 2006-2007 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org@csuchico.edu
How STEPS Facilitates Course-Embedded Assessment Creates an efficient and systematic way to collect and store large quantities of student work Preserves work samples without filling warehouses Allows data to be cut multiple ways By major; transfer vs. native student; at-risk students; FY students vs. seniors Supports review by accreditation teams
Type of GE Course # of papers assessed # of paper for class Week Paper Due Paper Value (%) Paper Length (pp.) Paper Genre Lower Division Area A-2 662 nd 11205 Rhetorical analysis Area B-2 161 st 12203 Case report Area B-2 653 rd 1042 Response Area C-3 241 st 1052-3 Think piece Area C-3 483 rd 12173-5 Summary/ analysis Area C-3 382 nd 8103 Summary/ analysis Area C-3 391 st 8255-6 Summary/ analysis Area D-3 191 st 122510 Research/ Analysis Area E 762 nd 1472-4 Think piece Upper Division Area B 581 st 7154-6 Case report Area D 131 st Varied217-10 Research paper Area D 691 st 1181-2 Flyer Total = ~ 530 pieces of student writing assessed
A Writing Assignment from Area B-2 Paper 3: Why do anthropologists study primates? (Or, what does it mean to be 98% chimpanzee?) …recently, geneticists have been able to determine with precision that humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical genetically.... Jonathan Marks, 98% Alike, The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 12, 2000 We are spending approximately five weeks in an anthropology class studying primates… Why? For this paper, concisely explain why studying primates is important to our understanding of what it means to be human. To support your paper you should include a discussion of similarities and differences between us and our closest relatives (specifically the apes). You will want to include both biological and non-biological comparisons. The paper should be approximately two full pages in length, double-spaced, typed, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. You ARE NOT expected to use outside sources but rather pull primarily from your own experiences, what we have covered in class, and the textbook. You may find your textbook, specifically chapter 11, helpful in formulating your thoughts. You ARE expected to cite and reference any ideas that are not your own (ie. from the textbook or from lecture). You are welcome to use either MLA or APA (the standard types) of citations and references. If you are not familiar with these, I have posted handouts on both styles (from Butte College) on WebCT.
A Writing Assignment from Upper Div. Theme C Case Study 1 - Trees of Sogolonbougou Your first major writing assignment will challenge your mediation and problem-solving skills! It does not require any specialized agricultural knowledge; however, in the role of a consultant, you will have to listen very closely to the disputants in a small African village and perhaps apply some of the knowledge that you have begun learning in this class. There are four parts to this assignment: 1)read Case 1, Trees of Sogolonbougou; 2)answer some questions about the case and share your answers with your group; 3)write a draft report providing an analysis and resolution to the case that you will share with your group; 4)critique drafts from your group; and 5)submit the final report to the instructor.
A Writing Assignment from UDT C, cont. Now, I have to inform you--facilitating a resolution to this case will be your job! Imagine this hypothetical scenario: because of your impressive attributes evidenced by your diligence in Food Forever class, you have been hired as a consultant by a non-profit organization to work with the disputants. You will apply a standard six-step problem-solving approach: 1.Describe the general nature of the problem 2.Describe important facts about the case 3.Identify the decision makers 4.Describe the goals and main concerns of each of the decision makers 5.Describe several possible alternatives (at least five) 6.Evaluate the alternatives and identify the best solution In addition, as a follow-up to your analysis-- 7.Describe possible future monitoring
Results: GE Writing 68% scored competent or above on Content 58% scored competent or above on Organization 55% scored competent or above on Grammar A wide variety of writing assignments, with appropriate level of challenge and complexity in courses examined. Seniors score significantly better than FY students on Content, Organization and Grammar, but gains are modest.
Results: GE Pedagogy and Assessment Writing an essential part of GE A variety of audiences, purposes, and genres for student writing Amount of structure and direction provided by teachers also varied How best to address writing in GE courses? Provide support for faculty innovation Syllabi and assignments provided much- needed context to assessment
Recommendations: GE Writing Share results of this assessment widely across campus Continue GE writing assessment at regular intervals Continue to collect student writing, moving toward a true longitudinal study of writing development Future writing assessment efforts should: strive to get more systematic and representative samplings provide more sustained training for readers continue to use STEPS to manage the process capture some of the informal communication among evaluators of student work
Recommendations: GE Writing, contd Faculty should continue to seek out creative, effective ways to engage students in constructive, developmental writing practices The university needs to provide ongoing faculty development that supports efforts of faculty at all levels to craft effective, appropriate GE writing assignments The GE Writing SLOs and rubric should be widely circulated on campus to elicit further discussion and refinement of these tools, and shared with students to provide them with clearer expectations of writing in GE.
Oral Communication From SLOs to Results … Ruth Guzley & Bill Loker
Oral Communication as a CSU Chico GE requirement EM99-05: in every course, relevant skills of the Core must be applied as essential to the process of mastering content and making applications... and further that themes will incorporate, build upon, and nurture skills from Area A... EM99-05: in every course, relevant skills of the Core must be applied as essential to the process of mastering content and making applications... and further that themes will incorporate, build upon, and nurture skills from Area A... GE Oral Communication requirement met by CMST131 Speech Comm. Fundamentals or CMST132 Small Group Communication GE Oral Communication requirement met by CMST131 Speech Comm. Fundamentals or CMST132 Small Group Communication
Oral Communication Assessment Process Tasks 1.Review & revise GE oral communication requirements from EM99-05 in SLO format 2.Identify spring 2006 GE courses for assessment & get instructor permission 3.Develop oral communication assessment rubric with help of GE instructors
GE Oral Communication SLOs Assessed SLO1: Students will effectively evaluate content for oral presentations. research sufficient content (types and sources of content) select appropriate/relevant content for specified audience/purpose accurately interpret and use content ethically use content (citing sources) SLO2: Students will effectively organize content used in oral presentations. clearly identify thesis for presentation (argument, topical, opinion) content corresponds to thesis coordinate content in logical or meaningful order show creativity in content development (themes, metaphors, larger organizational principles) shape content to meet needs of audience
SLO3: Students will effectively deliver oral presentation style of delivery is appropriate to context (memorized, manuscript, extemporaneous, impromptu) speaker demonstrates confidence with selected style speaker uses nonverbal channels to enhance delivery (eye- contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, voice quality) speaker responds to audience when necessary (corrects confusion, adjusts language, listens to and answers questions) GE Oral Communication SLOs Assessed (contd)
AREA A-1 ORAL COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT RUBRIC GOALS & LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT EFFECTIVE Good or better, above average level of achievement 3 ADEQUATE Proficient or average level of achievement 2 UNACCEPTABLE Below adequate level of achievement 1 ORGANIZATION Speech uses necessary structure (intro, body, conclusion, transitions) in an effective manner Structure can be organized in a creative/interesting manner, in addition to being very clear and logical Meaningful theme/thesis used to coordinate content Points distinct, flow easily from one to the next Speech uses some aspects of the basic structure (intro, body, conclusion, transitions), some more helpful than others Content is organized with a clear or basic thesis/theme Parts of the speech are distinct, some blur together Basic aspects of structure lacking overall Content lacks a clear thesis/theme Points lack coordination or logic
AREA A-1 ORAL COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT RUBRIC GOALS & LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT EFFECTIVE Good or better, above average level of achievement 3 ADEQUATE Proficient or average level of achievement 2 UNACCEPTABLE Below adequate level of achievement 1 CONTENT Content contains good or better information Explanations enhance audience understanding, clear, helpful logic is used Content includes multiple, relevant sources, quantitative details, types of evidence and/or useful information for support Content is accurate, provides clear details based on a solid understanding of the information used and cites sources consistently, when necessary Content contains sufficient, information Some explanations are included, some helpful, some not, maybe a couple logic flaws Content includes some sources or more than one type of evidence or support or information Content is mostly accurate and sources are cited at times, when necessary. Content is not sufficient Lacks explanation or clarity, logic problems Content is too general, vague, not well selected Content includes inaccurate information, is not well understood, and sources are rarely cited, if at all.
GOALS & LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT EFFECTIVE Good or better, above average level of achievement 3 ADEQUATE Proficient or average level of achievement 2 UNACCEPTABLE Below adequate level of achievement 1 DELIVERY Speakers delivery style/use of notes (manuscript or extemporaneous) is effective, the speaker maintains a focus on the audience Displays mostly consistent and audience-focused non-verbals that enhance parts of the speech (eye- contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, vocal quality, pace) Confidence, interest, enthusiasm/energy is evident Speaker consistently adjusts to the audience (choice of language, adjusts or rephrases, answers questions), when necessary Speakers delivery style/use of notes (manuscript or extemporaneous) are average, inconsistent focus on audience Displays basic competence in non-verbals, some aspects of speech are enhanced (eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, vocal quality, pace) Moderate degree of energy or interest present Shows some evidence of adjusting to the audience (choice of language, adjusts or rephrases, answers questions), when necessary Speakers delivery style/use of notes (manuscript or extemporaneous) is not adequate, lacks focus on audience Lack of competence in the non- verbals, flaws distract from speech (eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, vocal quality, pace) Lack of interest or energy Speaker fails to adjust to the audience (choice of language, adjusts or rephrases, answers questions), when necessary
Oral Communication Assessment Logistical Issues Videotaping/digital taping of speeches Transfer of taped speeches to DVD format Editing of speeches to facilitate ease of assessment Identification of speeches to be used in norming sessions Recruitment of assessors Scheduling of assessment sessions
GE CoursesIndividual/ Group Pres. # of Students Enrolled # of Students Assessed Area A-1 CMST 131Individual41070 CMST 132Group58064 Area E Group14 Group6140 Theme A Individual4722 Theme O Individual3820 GE Oral Comm. Courses Assessed Total = 230 student presentations assessed: 53 freshman, 30 sophomores, 69 juniors, 78 seniors
Results: GE Oral Communication Assessment In both the A-1 classes and the other GE courses assessed, most presentation evaluations indicate students have at least an adequate oral communication skill level in the three characteristics assessed (organization, content, and delivery). There was little, if any, improvement in student oral communication skills from the time students took one of the two A-1 classes to the time they reached upper division/theme GE classes (predominantly juniors and seniors), and in some ways their skills appear to have decayed. There are significant differences in CMST 131 and 132 scores on all areas assessed (CMST 132 > CMST 131).
Oral Communication Assessment: Recommendations Explore with department chairs and faculty in departments where GE classes are housed: 1)the extent to which oral communication is a requirement in these GE classes 2)if such requirements are consistent with GE oral communication goals and SLOs. Identify core oral communication skills that students can build across GE and major classes while acknowledging that variation is inevitable and acceptable.
Oral Communication Assessment: Recommendations (Contd) Discuss/plan how oral communication should be addressed in GE, including oral communication requirements, types of assignments, etc. Work with coordinators of CMST131 and CMST132 courses to ensure that GE oral communication goals and SLOs are addressed consistently and similarly in the two courses, including use of common rubric. Schedule a follow-up oral communication assessment in 2-3 years to examine the extent to which recommendations have been implemented and successful. Refine assessment methods based on present experience.
Quantitative Reasoning From SLOs to Results … Margaret Owens
Welcome to QR! MATH 101Patterns of Math. Thought 786 MATH 101HPatterns Math. Thought - H MATH 105Statistics 828 MATH 105HStatistics – Honors MATH 107Finite Math. for Business862 MATH 109Survey of Calculus121 MATH 118Trigonometry186 MATH 119Precalculus Math.192 MATH 120Analytic Geom & Calc.407
GE Programmatic Assessment, Mathematical Reasoning, 2005-2006 Student Learning Outcomes versus GE Goals GE Program GoalsGE Core SkillsGE Math Goals Baccalaureate graduates of CSU, Chico will be able to:1352312 Outcomes 1 - 3 will be measured through indirect means, e.g., a student response survey. 1) view mathematics with heightened interest, increased confidence, and less anxiety as a result of their educational experiences. 2) regard mathematics as a way to think, reason and conceptualize, not simply as a set of techniques. 3) understand and appreciate the connections between mathematics and a variety of quantitative and non- quantitative disciplines. Outcomes 4 - 6 will be measured through embedded direct means, e.g., student performance on an existing class assignment associated with one or more learning outcomes and evaluated using a common rubric. 4) develop and apply measurement techniques to data collection, and evaluate potential sources of error, including variability and bias. 5) interpret, make appropriate judgments, and draw reasonable conclusions based on numerical, graphical and symbolic information. 6) critically evaluate quantitative information, and identify deceptive or erroneous reasoning. Selected from Learning Outcomes for Mathematical Reasoning for the Baccalaureate Degree, Learning Outcomes Project Final Report, January 15, 1999. As defined in EM 99-05 The General Education Program:
Quantitative Reasoning – What is It? Working definition: Quantitative reasoning is the application of mathematics to describe, analyze, and solve authentic problems in context. Achieving Quantitative Literacy Lynn Arthur Steen
Identify GE Faculty, Courses, Assignments GE Quantitative Reasoning … Where to look? … Area A-4 -- Calculus vs. Probability tracks … In the majors? Where else in GE? Where is it??? EM 99-05 specifies that in every course, relevant skills of the Core must be applied as essential to the process of mastering content and making applications. and further that themes will incorporate, build upon, and nurture skills from Area A… Quantitative Reasoning in GE versus majors? What percentage of students get all their QR in GE? Contributions of GE versus major to students QR abilities? Will someone please pick a direction?! Ultimately: many AREA A-4 classes, + 2 UD GE classes + UD major class (2 UD GE eventually dropped from assessment) …
Course # Sections # Students Enrolled # Student Participants Probability Task Results MATH 101: Patterns of Mathematical Thought7294196 MATH 105: Statistics8273157 MATH 107: Finite Mathematics for Business7260221 CIVL 302: Engineering Economy and Statistics16633 Upper-Division GE2820 Probability Task Totals25975607 Calculus Problem Results MATH 120: Analytic Geometry and Calculus5153100 GE QR Assessment Courses
Embedded Probability Tasks 1. Which of the following sequences is most likely to result from flipping a fair coin 5 times? _____ a. H H H T T _____ b. T H T T T _____ c. H T H T H _____ d. All three sequences are equally likely 2. Select the alternative below that is the best explanation for the answer you gave for question 1 above. _____ a. Since the coin is fair, you ought to get roughly equal numbers of heads and tails. _____ b. Since coin flipping is random, the coin ought to alternate frequently between landing heads and tails. _____ c. If you get a couple of heads in a row, the probability of a tails on the next flip increases. _____ d. Each sequence of five flips has the same probability of occurring.
Probability Task Results Math PatternsIntro statsBusiness statsCivil eng. stats Right12463.27%12881.53%15469.68%2884.85% Wrong7236.73%2918.47%6730.32%515.15% Totals196100.00%157100.00%221100.00%33100.00% malefemaledev mathno dev math right18867.14%24675.23%16467.21%27074.38% wrong9232.86%8124.77%8032.79%9325.62% totals280100.00%327100.00%244100.00%363100.00%
Embedded Calculus Task MATH 120 Final Exam Problem A ladder 13 feet long is leaning against a wall. The bottom of the ladder is being pulled away from the wall at the constant rate of 6 ft/min. How fast is the top of the ladder moving down the wall when the bottom of the ladder is 5 ft from the wall?
Calculus Task Results scoreallmalefemale1 st yearnot 1 st year 45050%4156%933%2143%2957% 377%34%415%510%24% 22323%1622%726%1327%1020% 11414%811%622%714%7 066%57%14%36%3 totals100100%73100%27100%49100%51100% mean = 2.81 = 1.35 mean = 2.92 = 1.36 mean = 2.52 = 1.28 mean = 2.69 = 1.33 mean = 2.92 = 1.37 t-test, p = 0.189t-test, p = 0.401
Recommendations: GE Quantitative Reasoning Establish benchmarks for quantitative reasoning expectations. This is a campus-wide task: campus expectations for quantitative reasoning? When/where should we assess student progress? Embed quantitative reasoning across the curriculum. We do students a disservice when we avoid QR simply because students find it difficult. Like writing skills, quantitative reasoning skills need to be reinforced and developed over time and in a variety of settings, both in the majors and in GE. Provide and support professional development opportunities in quantitative reasoning across the disciplines, including GE. Develop a collection of resources for faculty wishing to incorporate significant QR into their courses. Provide workshops in which faculty can work together to develop such interdisciplinary resources, including appropriate assessment instruments.
Recommendations: GE Quantitative Reasoning, contd Begin a campus conversation about the results of this study. What is the mathematics enrollment history of a typical student? (Analyze a sample of student transcripts.) We dont know if our students leave college better able to reason quantitatively than when they entered. Do we wish to measure value added? How would we measure this? Help the campus understand that this study is only a first step is assessing quantitative reasoning and that quantitative reasoning should not be assessed solely in mathematics courses.
Critical Thinking From SLOs to Results …? Bill Loker
Assessing Critical Thinking in GE AY 06-07 … Process is underway, Task Force formed Definitional issues: What is Critical Thinking? How can CT be assessed? SLOs? Embedded assessment? Where is CT in GE curriculum? Appropriate assignments? Detecting, assessing CT in a variety of assignments? Inter-rater reliability?
Comprehension: In texts and other forms of discourse, students: SLO 1. Can identify issues Does the text address an issue or problem? If so, what is it? …. SLO 3. Can recognize the difference between conclusions and the arguments for them If a conclusion has been reached, what is it? What arguments have been given for that conclusion? Reasoning: In texts and other forms of discourse, students: … SLO 9. Can evaluate the credibility of statements and sources Are sources and claims both credible? Critical Thinking SLOs
On Balance …. AY 05-06 … first steps toward GE Program assessment … AY 06-07 fostering discussion, assessing CT AY 05-06 … first steps toward GE Program assessment … AY 06-07 fostering discussion, assessing CT Faculty discussion and recommendations needed on GE Goals for Oral Communication and Quantitative Reasoning Faculty discussion and recommendations needed on GE Goals for Oral Communication and Quantitative Reasoning Assessment should be ongoing not episodic, esp. for longitudinal data, value added (role of STEPS) Assessment should be ongoing not episodic, esp. for longitudinal data, value added (role of STEPS)
On Balance, more … What support do faculty need to enhance GE instruction, improve student learning? What support do faculty need to enhance GE instruction, improve student learning? What role does assessment have in shaping GE reform/revision on our campus? What role does assessment have in shaping GE reform/revision on our campus? How can GE better serve the needs of our students, enhance learning, connect with majors, explore important national/global issues? How can GE better serve the needs of our students, enhance learning, connect with majors, explore important national/global issues?
Issues for discussion … Is this Program assessment? Is this Program assessment? Campus conversations: how to convene, encourage? Campus conversations: how to convene, encourage? Role of students in GE assessment, reform? Role of students in GE assessment, reform? How to make this work consequential: closing the loop? How to make this work consequential: closing the loop?
Acknowledgements Thanks to all the faculty members who participated in this study, provided access to their classes, assignments, students, and participated in assessment activities: reading, scoring, thinking, discussing … Thanks to all the faculty members who participated in this study, provided access to their classes, assignments, students, and participated in assessment activities: reading, scoring, thinking, discussing … Thanks to Don Penland and Lorraine Gardiner for technical support Thanks to Don Penland and Lorraine Gardiner for technical support Contact: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Contact: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org@csuchico.edu email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org@email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com@csuchico.edu