Assessment Criteria

The core of the assessment strategy for the QEP SLOs rests on instructor evaluation of student classwork using a set of common rubrics. These rubrics are modeled on the AAC&U VALUE rubrics and reflect personal development along a continuum of intercultural competence as defined within the context of the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI).  

SLO 1 Rubric (PDF)
SLO 2 Rubric (PDF)
SLO 3 Rubric (PDF)
SLO 4 Rubric (PDF)
SLO 5 Rubric (PDF)

Assessment Process

A sample of i-Course sections is selected each term that is representative of:

(1) the range of disciplines within the i-Course framework, 
(2) the curriculum level of the course (upper level or lower level), and 
(3) the level of SLO attainment expected. 

i-Course faculty use the appropriate rubric(s) to assess student work submitted for an assignment that was designed to capture student development pertaining to one or more of the QEP learning outcomes. This process captures a representative sample of students within i-Courses and makes authentic student work the center of assessment. The table below provides results per semester since Fall 2016, disaggregated by level of i-Course within the GGC curriculum, where lower-level courses carry 1000 or 2000 designations and higher-level courses carry 3000 or 4000 designations.

Three years of results indicate consistent levels of learning at the upper-end of the range between a score of a one or two, what the rubrics designate as closer to “Developing” than “Novice.”  Both the 3-year and individual academic year means demonstrate that learning outcomes were higher in upper-level i-Courses than lower-level i-Courses, where learning was between “Developing” and “Capstone.” This trend was consistent for every SLO for every academic year with the exception of SLO 4 during AY 2016. Notable variation in learning measurements for SLO 1 between AYs 2016 and 2017 are attributable to unclarity and inconsistency in the use of the rubric specifically for that learning outcome. One faculty development activity during AY 2017, a discussion of the application of that rubric and clarification on how to examine students’ “description and evaluation of their own cultures,” was intended to resolve discrepancies in instructors’ application of that rubric.

View assessment results table (PDF).