1. Senior Literacy Assessment: AY 2011-2012

2. Senior Literacy Assessment English assessment was an interest of USDE and MSCHE ▫Undertaken in various forms since with the first study in 1993 then again in 1997, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012. ASL assessment begun in 2011 under direction of Dirksen Baumann and ASL Dept. SLA is a stop-gap until we put in place full assessment of institutional outcomes

3. Goals of the Senior Literacy Assessment Engage faculty in professional development regarding assessing literacy Provide data about Gallaudet graduating seniors that can be used for institutional and program improvement Provide data that can be used by appropriate groups to establish target literacy performance levels for Gallaudet undergraduates Describe the changes in Gallaudet student writing performance as they progress through the undergraduate curriculum Recommend improvements to future assessment processes

4. Senior Literacy Assessment Participation: Spring 2012 # of graduating seniors by spring semester343 Written English Product Assessment # of written English products submitted130 (a 17% decrease from the previous year) # of written English products evaluated129 (a 18 % decrease from the previous year) # of evaluators for English products13 (similar to previous year) ASL Product Assessment # of ASL products submitted55 (a 244% increase from the previous year) # of ASL products evaluated43 (a 169% increase from the previous year) # of evaluators for ASL products12

5. 2012 Departmental Participation # of Departments submitting Written English products 19 # of Departments submitting ASL product 10 # of Departments submitting both Written English and ASL products 10 ASL-DST ONLY Dept. to submit both types of products in 2011 and 2012

6. ASL and English Assessment Each product rated in five parallel criterion areas Scale of 1 to 4 The rubric for ASL was adapted from the AACU Value Rubric for Oral Presentation The rubric for written English used this year (for the first time) was the AACU Written Communication Value Rubric. Rubrics changed this year; there is no established process for determining which rubrics will be used for institutional assessment

7. Average and Range Across all Programs (ASL) OrganizationLanguageDelivery Supporting Material Central MessageFormatting AVERAGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS2.4 2.02.1 N/A RANGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS2.1 – 2.81.3 – 3.21.8 – 3.11.0 – 3.31.0 – 2.52.0-4.0 There were dramatic differences in mean scores among Departments. Students in the departments of Education, FCS, and ASL-DST received 3 or higher more often than students in other departments.

8. Average and Range Across all Programs (Written English) CONTEXT AND PURPOSE FOR WRITNG CONTENT DEVELOP- MENT GENRE AND DISCIPLINARY CONVENTIONS SOURCES AND EVIDENCE CONTROL OF SYNTAX AND MECHANICS AVERAGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS3.02.9 2.7 RANGE ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS1.5-41.8-41.7-41.1-41.5-4 There were dramatic differences in mean scores among Departments. Students in the departments of Biology, History, Honors, International Studies, Liberal Studies, Sociology, and Theatre had a higher number of criterion areas in which they received 3 or higher than did other departments.

9. What is Next? Short-Term Remind Chairs early in the year of expectations Increase Program use of written English and ASL presentation products in Senior year Increase faculty engagement in understanding characteristics of good ASL and English products Set literacy targets

10. What is Next? Long-Term General Education outcomes and majors outcomes together GE and major outcomes assessed in the senior year Engage Institutional Outcomes Committee and CUE in standardizing expectations for institutional assessments Figure out what the forums are for discussing program strengths and weaknesses in achieving institutional outcomes