SCGR Results Spring 2016 Student Academic Achievement Committee
Background Second time assessed, first with sufficient participation to analyze results Participation: 7 sections at 100-level, 4 sections at 200-level 6 prefixes 7 classes 11 sections 7 instructors 182 students (28 new freshmen, 80 freshmen/sophomores, and 74 sophomores)
Overall Key Findings Five areas for assessment: Analyze the consequences of the issue for all stakeholders (3.18) Decide on responsible behaviors addressing the issue at the social, civic, or global level (3.03) Decide on responsible behaviors addressing the issue at the individual level (3.10) Evaluate viewpoints of an issue (2.97) Identify key characteristics and stakeholders of the issue (3.46)
Changes in Scale The fall 2012 administration of SCGR used a 3-point scale. The 2016 administration of SCGR used a 4-point scale To compare administrations, the scoring of 4 in the 2016 administration was edited to 3 (3 or 4 was scored as 3).
Overall Key Findings (4-Scale) * Statistically significant difference between new freshmen and sophomores mean scores New Freshman Sophomore Overall Analyze the consequences of the issue for all stakeholders 3.12 3.11 3.18 Decide on responsible behaviors addressing the issue at the social, civic, or global level 2.96 3.02 3.03 Decide on responsible behaviors addressing the issue at the individual level. * 2.88 3.14 3.10 Evaluate viewpoints of an issue 2.80 2.83 2.97 Identify key characteristics and stakeholders of the issue 3.48 3.46 3.05 3.15
Differences Affecting Comparisons Differences in the sections administering may have affected outcomes: 0 CRE sections in 2012, 3 in 2016. CRE represented 36% of all participating prefixes in 2016. ENG represented 47% of responses in 2012, 0% in 2016 6 ENG sections in 2012, 0 in 2016 Demographic changes between 2012 & 2016 assessments: 50% of respondents in 2012 were new freshmen, only 15% in 2016 21% of respondents in 2012 were sophomores, 41% in 2016 Massive drop in age 15-19 respondents (from 55% in 2012 to 39 in 2016). The spring 2016 picked up that loss in the 20-24 age range New freshmen represented 50% in 2012, only 18% in 2016. Full time respondents dropped (from 136 in 2012 to 84 in 2016) Overall, day students dropped from 90% of all respondents in 2012 to 66% The % of Hispanic respondents shifted from 43% in 2012 to 53% in 2016. Female respondents shifted from 60% to 68%
Overall Key Findings (3-Scale) * Statistically significant difference between new freshmen and sophomores mean scores New Freshman Sophomore Overall Analyze the consequences of the issue for all stakeholders Spring '12 2.26 2.48 2.34 Spring '16 2.80 2.77 Decide on responsible behaviors addressing the issue at the social, civic, or global level 2.21 2.43 2.30 2.76 2.64 2.71 Decide on responsible behaviors addressing the issue at the individual level 2.37 2.68 2.78 Evaluate viewpoints of an issue 1.96 2.10 2.60 2.62 Identify key characteristics and stakeholders of the issue 2.46 2.52 2.92 2.87 2.88 2.33 2.61 2.51
Key Findings Students were relatively successful with the ability to identify key characteristics and stakeholders of an issue (3.46), analyze the consequences for all stakeholders (3.18), decide on responsible behaviors at an individual (3.10) and social/civic/global level (3.03) Students were least proficient with the evaluation of viewpoints of an issue (2.97) New freshmen outperformed sophomores at deciding responsible behavior at an individual level (statistically significant difference)
Next Steps Dissemination of information at the college-level Leadership Council Division Meetings Assessment Happens Email blast to faculty Dissemination beyond college West Valley Think Tank Sharing with other colleges
Next Steps ???