Essential Studies Assessment

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

Score Distribution

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

Results Summary

• 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

Results

• 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

Results

• 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.

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).

Data Summaries

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