1. General Education Assessment
Global Awareness

2. Global Awareness GEO
Students will demonstrate understanding and awareness of issues related to, and consequences of, the growing global interdependence of diverse societies by integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines. Students will describe how social, cultural, political, and economic values and norms interact.
1. Recognize the value and significance of artistic and religious expressions in various world cultures.
2. Articulate the values and beliefs that influence humans in seeking identity and meaning within their culture.
3. Describe the impact of global interdependence on local cultures including those within the United States.
4. Identify the origin of events that have led to contemporary global conflict, competition, and cooperation.
5. Demonstrate awareness and knowledge of the economic forces that have led to the interdependence of
national economies and the imbalance of distribution of wealth.
6. Demonstrate knowledge of the impact of global interdependence on the natural world.
AssessmentGenEdOutcome as written in database
3. Global Awareness: Describe global interdependence and local cultures
4. Global Awareness: Know history of global conflict and cooperation
2. Global Awareness: Recognize values and beliefs
5. Global Awareness: Evaluate economic interdependence / wealth distribution
6. Global Awareness: Understand global environmental issues
1. Global Awareness: Appreciate artistic and religious expressions

3. Demographics (193 responses analyzed)
Age – 77% less than 25 years
Sex – 43% female, 52% male, 5% unknown
35% were international students
66% started college at SCC,
and 30% transferred in
Race/Ethnicity
Age ranged from 15 to 58. Most students were aged 19 or less (total 118)
Seems like too many minors. In B564, 494/6209 (7.95%) were under the age of 18, whereas our sample has 59/199=29.6%

4. Student scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Evidence of student learning ranged from none to substantial
Scores ranged from 1 – 10 (out of 12)
The average score was 5.5 or minimal (SD = 2.1)
A non US culture was mentioned by 149 students (77%)
The students own culture was mentioned by 107 students (55%)
Gave students credit for mentioning a non-US culture and their own culture only if BOTH faculty rated it as such

5. Distribution of scores

6. Cumulative credits Cumulative credits earned Cumulative credits earned
by quarters attended
Updated for only 193 students included in the analysis

7. Analysis
After Opening Week

8. Correlation with Cumulative Credits
r = .027, ns

9. GA2 Courses NURS 252 - Nursing and Health Promotion Practicum
GA2 Intensity
Course Count
None
581
Low
358
High
102
Low Intensity
High Intensity
HIIM Legal Aspects of Health Care
This course provides an introduction to legal concepts, court functions, and legal practices related to health care practitioners.
DRMA Acting, Writing, Directing for the Camera I
Discussion of films in terms of cinematic styles, acting and screenplay structure along with exercises in acting, directing, writing and filming of original productions
NURS Nursing and Health Promotion Practicum
Nursing practicum in ambulatory and community settings with focus on use of nursing process and promoting health in vulnerable populations experiencing disparities
POLS&203 - International Relations
This class examines how nations interact in a globalized world.

10. Correlation with GA2 courses
Note: Counted courses that students passed with at least a 2.0
GA2 Low Intensity (p = .036, r = .166)
GA2 High Intensity (p = ns, r = .05)
Before opening week, GA2 intensity variables erroneously counted all courses taken, not just GA2. Be sure that highest low intensity is 26. SPSS data not corrected, but Tableau is. (Tableau gives stats.)

11. Correlation with GA2 courses
GA2 Low Intensity (p = .036, r = .166)
Controlling for other factors
Age and Cumulative Credits Earned, which are highly correlated with GA2 counts (p < .01, r = .21)
Don’t have record of running this, likely didn’t save SPSS file. Use excel file GA2 after opening week

12. Similar trends with GA2 – high intensity

13. Examined data based on questions from Opening Week
Resident looks interesting, but turns out not significant (ME or Int.)
Pathway is interesting if include other variables, so marginal result

14. Looking at other measures
Correlated with Ave Rating
Mentioning a non-US culture
Mentioning your own culture
Sex
Correlated with GA2 Classes- Low Intensity
Age Group
Cumulative Credits Earned
Kind of Student

15. Building a model summary
Step-wise model shows mentioning a Non-US culture and your own culture related to better ratings, F(2,145) = 10.1, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .11
Own Culture B = .486, p = .004 & Non-US Culture = .532, p = .008
Note: Student received credit for mentioning culture only if both raters indicated the student mentioned it.
Using enter method, sex doesn’t play a role, but additional factors contributing to better scores include lower cumulative credits, being a work force student, and taking more classes that assess GA2 (low intensity), F(9,147) = 4.2
If use GA2 – high intensity, then only kind of student matters
Lets look at this further…

16. Building a model, a closer look
Step-wise model shows mentioning a Non-US culture and your own culture related to better ratings
ANOVA indicates there is a significant interaction. Student ratings are lower if they don’t mention a non-US culture or their own culture No
Yes
No Yes
Non-US Culture
Ave. Ratings 6 4 2
Own Culture
This isn’t surprising. Importantly, scores still not reaching moderate evidence
Step-wise regression: F(2,145) = 10.1, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .11
Own Culture B = .486, p = .004
Non-US Culture = .532, p = .008
F(1,189) = 4.76, p = .03. (Main Effects, ns)

17. Building a model, lousy effect sizes
Only a half point increase each for mentioning a Non-US or your own culture.
About 1/6 of a point for taking a class that assesses GA2 (low intensity)
Mentioning culture together with taking more GA2 low intensity classes mediates effects kind of student and cumulative credits earned
Model accounts for 18.3% of the variance (Adj. R2)
F(5,159) = 8.141, p < .001

18. Summary Our study worked! But the results aren’t impressive…
Overall students presented only minimal evidence of learning GA2
The average score was 5.5 (SD = 2.1) out of 12.
Further, 27% of students (53/193) presented moderate or substantial evidence. No students received a score above 10.
Ratings related significantly to mentioning culture (either the student’s own culture, a non-US culture, or both), but students who mentioned culture still only showed minimal evidence of learning.
Our study shows students aren’t learning GA2 well, and they need to take a substantial amount of classes to show moderate or substantial evidence of learning
This evidence supports a need for change
How should we act?