Page History

Analysis & Reflection

The fall 2019 assessment results clearly demonstrate that the vast majority of Geneseo's Western Humanities students are engaged successfully in the learning process across all sections of 220, 221, and 222. 75% of students meet or exceed outcome 1, and 69% meet or exceed outcome 2.

Figures 1 and 2 show the fall 2019 results in comparison with our two other outcome data sets. Generally the data show consistent, now perhaps predictable, assessment result patterns. But there is also evidence of the continual improvement of student learning. The 2019 results for exceeding outcome 1 show marked, measurable improvement since 2012, and last fall's results for outcome 2 demonstrate long-term, if more measured, improvement in student learning over the last decade.

This assessment was completed using comparative, expository writing assignments as the artifacts.  Instructors were given leeway as to which course work was used in assessment.  Some used stand-alone assignments, while most chose a writing sample that was part of a larger examination.  

The fall assessment reporting rate was the highest in recent record.  The 2014, 2011-12, and 2008 assessments reported on roughly one-third of all enrolled 220 and 221 students; 71% of sections and 69% percent of enrolled Western Humanities students were assessed this semester.  

That noted, faculty reporting issues, documented in 2008 and 2012, continue.  The complicated, two-step rubric used for outcome one seems to present an obstacle for some faculty.  This issue, combined with the practice of reporting both outcome 1 and 2 simultaneously, leads to some faculty submitting incomplete assessment reports–slightly more than half of enrolled students were assessed for outcome two (a significant increase over past assessments, but still too low).  

No assessment was completed for HUMN 288/222.  Data for this course is a priority going forward.  

Figure 1. Comparative Outcome One Assessment Results, 2008-2019

Action Items

• Western Humanities assessment should occur on a more frequent and predictable schedule, rotating individually through each of the four outcomes.  
• While the assessment results are positive and follow a consistent pattern, the Area Committee and Faculty should complete a documented, deliberative exchange concerning the overall understanding of the assessment terms and alignment of their application.   
• The Area Committee should redesign and simplify the rubric and assessment process for Outcome One.  
• The Area Committee should redesign the rubric and assessment process for Outcome Two in order for it to completed separately from Outcome One. 
• Department chairs and assessment coordinators should assist the Area Committee in encouraging full faculty participation in General Education assessment.      

Figure 2. Comparative Outcome Two Assessment Results, 2008-2019