Skip to main content
University of North Dakota
University of North Dakota
    • Admitted Students
    • Current Students
    • Families of Current Students
    • Faculty & Staff
    • Alumni
    • Email
    • Blackboard
    • Campus Connection
    • Employee Self-Service (HRMS)
    • Starfish
    • Degree Map
    • Zoom
  • Directory
  • Academics
  • Admissions
  • Student Life
  • Research
  • Athletics
  • Majors & Programs
  • About
University of North Dakota
  • Academics
  • Admissions
  • Student Life
  • Research
  • Athletics
  • Majors & Programs
  • About
  • Request Info
  • Visit
  • Apply
  • Request Info
  • Visit
  • Apply
  • Home
  • Academics
  • Essential Studies
  • Essential Studies Assessment
Skip Section Navigation
  • Essential Studies
  • Approved Courses Show/hide children
    • How Are Courses Approved?
  • Student Requirements Show/hide children
    • Check Progress
    • Student Petitions
  • Faculty Info Show/hide children
    • Goals
    • Course Development
    • Course Validation
    • Course Revalidation
    • Assessment
    • Syllabus Language
  • ES Committee Show/hide children
    • Meeting minutes
  • Policies
  • History

Essential Studies Assessment

The Essential Studies (ES) Program assessment process benefits from faculty assessment of course material in order to assess each ES learning goal. Data is collected from faculty on one learning goal per semester based on the ES learning goal rubrics.

  • Fall 2022 - Information Literacy
  • Spring 2023 - Oral Communication
  • Fall 2023 - Intercultural Knowledge & Skills
  • Spring 2024 - Written Communication
  • Fall 2024 - Critical Inquiry & Analysis
  • Spring 2025 - Quantitative Reasoning

Essential Studies Assessment Training

The Information Literacy Goal was assessed during the fall 2022 semester. 

  • Powerpoint
  • Training Video

The Oral Communication goal is being assessed during the spring 2023 semester. 

  • Presentation
  • Training Video

Rubrics

  • ES Written Communication Rubric
  • ES Oral Communication Rubric 
  • ES Quantitative Reasoning Rubric
  • ES Information Literacy Rubric
  • ES Intercultural Knowledge & Skills Rubric
  • ES Critical Inquiry & Analysis 

Data Summaries

We do not have data summaries from 2020 or 2021. We did not receive a summary from our VALUE Institute data submissions in 2020 and chose at that time to no longer submit work to them for our assessment purposes. We did not collect any data in 2021 as we were developing a new process that will result in data collection during Fall 2022.

2017-2018 VALUE Institute Summary-Quantitative Literacy 

A total of 86 faculty and staff scorers interacted with approximately 350 students at the Spring 2017 UNDergraduate Showcase poster session.

Data quality considerations and assessment methodology:

  • Pre-scoring “norming” process was used to achieve scorer consistency.
  • Scorers were randomly assigned to interact with students to avoid systematic scoring biases.
  • Scoring sample came from a subset of the total population of ES capstone students, and thus was not a true random sample.
  • Only students scored by at least two independent scorers were considered for the final analysis.
  • In the large majority of cases the spread between scorers’ results for the same student differed by 2 points or less (out of a maximum of 6).

Scorer Varibility

oral comm pie chart

Score range of two or less is significantly larger than score range of three or greater.

Score Distribution

oral comm score

 Approximately 68 selected Accomplished (4.5-6).

For results with the highest-possible reliability and validity, we focus on the 836 scoring instances with a maximum scorer spread of 0 or 1:

  • Oral Communication, May 2017: Scoring Results (Undergraduate Showcase and Brief Analysis)
  • Oral Communication: iDashboards Results

Interpreting Results

These results suggest UND students’ oral communication abilities are rarely “unsatisfactory,” with more than 2/3 scoring as “accomplished.”

A total of 20 faculty and staff scored approximately 85 students’ written work from a performance task developed by UND faculty and which was focused on the ES Written Communication learning goal. Students completed their work during the February 2016 Assessment Week.

Data Quality Considerations and Assessment Methodology:

  • Pre-scoring “norming” process was used to achieve scorer consistency.
  • Scorers were randomly assigned to assess students’ work to avoid systematic scoring biases.
  • Scoring sample came from a subset of the total population of ES capstone students, and thus was not a true random sample.
  • Only students scored by at least two independent scorers were considered for the final analysis.
  • In the large majority of cases the spread between scorers’ results for the same student differed by 2 points or less (out of a maximum of 6).

Scorer Variability

written comm pie chart

A significant amount selected Score Range of 2 or Less.

Results Summary

written comm chart

Majority selcted Developing (2.5-4.5)

  • For results with the highest-possible validity, we focus on the 183 scoring instances of ES capstone students with a scorer spread of 0 or 1:
  • Written Communication Scoring Session, December 2016:Scoring Results and Brief Analysis

Interpreting Results

There is clear room for improvement, as only approximately 30% of students produced work in the “accomplished” category.

A total of 22 faculty and staff scored approximately 100 students’ written work from a performance task developed by UND faculty which was focused on the ES Diversity learning goal (this was the name and framework for the goal before being revised to become Intercultural Knowledge & Skills). Students completed their work during the February 2016 Assessment Week.

Data Quality Considerations and Assessment Methodology:

  • Pre-scoring “norming” process was used to achieve scorer consistency.
  • Scorers were randomly assigned to assess students’ work to avoid systematic scoring biases.
  • Scoring sample came from a subset of the total population of ES capstone students, and thus was not a true random sample.
  • Only students scored by at least two independent scorers were considered for the final analysis.
  • In the large majority of cases the spread between scorer’s results for the same student differ by 2 points or less (out of a maximum spread of 6).

Scorer Variability

intercultural pie chart

 Majority selected Score Range of 2 or less.

Results

intercultural score

Majority selected Unsatisfactory (0-2.5).

  • For results with the highest possible validity, we focus on the 270 scoring instances of ES capstone students with a scorer spread of 0 or 1:
  • Diversity Scoring Session, May 2016:Scoring Results and Brief Analysis

Interpreting Results

  • These results were discouraging, as only approximately 15% of students produced work in the “accomplished” category, and almost a majority showed scores in the “unsatisfactory” category.
  • Because of the key piece of evidence provided by these results, the ES requirements in this particular area have been revised, and involve strengthened course criteria and expectations.

A total of 15 faculty and staff scored approximately 120 students’ written work from a performance task developed by UND faculty which was focused on the ES Quantitative Reasoning learning goal. Students completed their work during the February 2015 Assessment Week.

Data Quality Considerations and Assessment Methodology:

  • Pre-scoring “norming” process was used to achieve scorer consistency.
  • Scorers were randomly assigned to assess students’ work to avoid systematic scoring biases.
  • Scoring sample came from a subset of the total population of ES capstone students, and thus was not a true random sample.
  • Only students scored by at least two independent scorers were considered for the final analysis.
  • In the large majority of cases the spread between scorer’s results for the same student differ by 2 points or less (out of a maximum spread of 6).

Scorer Variability

reasoning pie chart

Majority selected Score Range of 2 or Less.

Results

reasoning score

Majority selected Accomplished (4.5-6).

  • For results with the highest possible validity, we focus on the 363 scoring instances of ES capstone students with a scorer spread of 0 or 1:
  • Quantitative Reasoning Scoring Session, December 2015: Scoring Results and Brief Analysis
Interpreting Results
  • Roughly 45% of students scored in each of the “accomplished” and “developing” categories, indicating clear room for improvement.
  • A previous instance of quantitative reasoning assessment showed a greater percentage of students in the “Unsatisfactory” and “Accomplished” categories. Thus there was both positive and negative progress made between the two assessment instances.

In February 2018, senior students (n=171) in ES Capstone courses volunteered to take a specially designed “performance task” that presented them with a scenario asking them to produce work focused on the ES Information Literacy (IL) learning goal. The task was designed by UND faculty members to determine the level of accomplishment of UND students relative to this aspect of the ES Program. The task was aligned with the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ VALUE rubric for IL. In May 2018, faculty and staff (n=28) participated in a “scoring session” in which they assessed the students’ work from February 2018. Below are summarized the results from the scoring session.

information literacy pie chart

Majority selected Developing.

Data Summaries

  • Information Literacy: Scoring Results and Brief Analysis

In February 2017, senior students (n = 240) in ES Capstone courses volunteered to take a specially designed “performance task” that presented them with a scenario asking for them to produce work focused on the ES Critical Inquiry & Analysis learning goal. The task was designed by UND faculty members to determine the level of accomplishment of UND students relative to the ES CI&A learning goal. The task was aligned with both UND’s ES CI&A criteria and UND’s CI&A Assessment Rubric. In December 2017, faculty and academic staff (n = 28) participated in a “scoring session” in which they assessed the students’ work from February 2017. Below are summarized the results from the scoring session for the 195 student work products scored the requisite number of times (2 under most circumstances, 3 times when the first two scorings disagreed substantially).

critical inquiry pie chart

Majority selected Score Range of 2 or Less.

Data Summaries

  • Critical Thinking and Written Communication: Scoring Session Results/Report

Contact

For more information about the Essential Studies assessment process, contact:

Karina Knutson
Assessment & Accreditation Specialist

Essential Studies
Karyn Plumm, Essential Studies Director
karyn.plumm@UND.edu
    We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience.

    By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies, Privacy Information.

    Ready to Enroll?

    • Request Information
    • Schedule a Visit
    • Apply Now
    • UND.info@UND.edu
    • 701.777.3000
    • YouTube
    • Instagram
    • Facebook
    • TikTok
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Contact UND
    • Campus Map
    • Events Calendar
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Explore Programs
    • Employment
    • Make a Gift
    University of North Dakota

    © 2023 University of North Dakota - Grand Forks, ND - Member of ND University System

    • Accessibility & Website Feedback
    • Terms of Use & Privacy
    • Notice of Nondiscrimination
    • Student Disclosure Information
    • Title IX
    ©