1. SCGR Results Spring 2016 Student Academic Achievement Committee

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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).

5. 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

6. Differences Affecting Comparisons
Differences in the sections administering may have affected outcomes:
0 CRE sections in 2012, 3 in CRE represented 36% of all participating prefixes in 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 respondents (from 55% in 2012 to 39 in 2016). The spring 2016 picked up that loss in the 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%

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Next Steps Dissemination of information at the college-level
Leadership Council
Division Meetings
Assessment Happens
blast to faculty
Dissemination beyond college
West Valley Think Tank
Sharing with other colleges

10. Next Steps
???