Office of General Education A-218C

160 Convent Avenue

New York, NY 10031

GENERAL EDUCATION (W) PERSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Date of report: / Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Course: / Philosophy 102
Materials used, n: / 27
Rubric/Scoring standard used: / Gen Ed rubrics for writing, critical thinking and info. literacy
Date of assessment: / June, 2014
Assessment Team
Members: / Jennifer Morton, Carolyn Plunkett, Robert Robinson
Coordination / Oversight: / Ana Vasović, Coordinator for General Education

WRITING SKILLS

Writing – average scores *
Thesis / Structure and Organization / Evidence and Development / Mechanics and Style
Spring 12 / 2.02 / 2.20 / 2.19 / 2.37
Spring 13 / 2.20 / 2.33 / 2.44 / 2.27
Spring 14 / 2.40 / 2.56 / 2.30 / 2.56
Strengths:
In general students had a clear understanding of the progression of an argumentative essay -- introduce a topic, outline an argument, provide some objection to that argument -- and this may reflect the format of the assignment. Most had mastered the typical 5-paragraph essay with an introduction and conclusion. Most students had paragraphs that had a central idea.
Nearly all papers had a thesis statement that elucidated the purpose of the paper, even though the purpose wasn’t always argumentative or analytical. Grammar and mechanics were good overall
Weaknesses/Concerns:
While students have a broad understanding of the general form, they don't seem to have a strong grasp of the right way to organize thoughts inside a paragraph to strengthen their arguments. In particular, when students are making an argument, they should work on drawing the connections from sentence to sentence in order to lead the reader to the conclusion. The conclusion of the paper should be more carefully tied to the argument of the paper.
Other comments:
Very few of the paper topics mention the appropriate scope of the argument. Instructors should remind students that they can only make a very modest point in a paper of this size.
Conclusions varied in scope and purpose. We might think about the purpose of a conclusion in our disciple – to wrap up an argument and indicate consequences of the position defended.


CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

Critical Thinking – average scores
Explanation of issues / Evidence / Context & Assumptions / Student's Position / Conclusions
Spring 12 / 2.46 / 2.22 / 1.94 / 1.58 / 1.86
Spring 13 / 2.56 / 2.50 / 2.38 / 2.15 / 2.06
Spring 14 / 2.44 / 2.47 / 2.21 / 2.09 / 2.06
Strengths:
Compared to initial assessments in the course, instructors have improved in directing students towards staking out a critical position by explicitly mentioning this in their assignments. Consequently students continue to improve on this score and most papers have a point of view rather than just summarizing other authors. Most students address at least two competing views on a subject and some students put forward criticisms of the authors’ arguments.
Some papers did a great job of incorporating analysis throughout and not reserving analysis for one paragraph at the end (though many papers did that, as well!)
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Students should focus on being very clear about which claim or part of an argument they are contesting. Often they give general, largely irrelevant, or completely unsupported objections to an argument, and then conclude that it is not right. Students should develop a focused counter-argument instead of critiquing many aspects of a view. Though some students are critical of the authors’ arguments, many of them are not sufficiently critical of their own position. Very few took into consideration counter-arguments to their own view.
Other comments:
Instructors should instruct students on the appropriate argumentative scope for a paper of this size. We might think about what students should be expected to critically evaluate – the premises of an argument? Whether the premises support a conclusion? The implications of adopting a conclusion? These are all, of course, worthy of evaluation, but different prompts asked students to evaluate different aspects of the argument or its consequences. Do we want to streamline that? How can we make better prompts to pinpoint more narrowly the focus of critical analysis?
Conclusions varied in scope and purpose. We might think about the purpose of a conclusion in our disciple – to wrap up an argument and indicate consequences of the position defended.

INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS

Information Literacy – average scores *
Understand info needs / search efficiently / Evaluate info sources / Credibility of sources / Use info ethically
Spring 12 / 2.58 / N/A / N/A / 2.17
Spring 13 / N/A / N/A / N/A / 2.85
Spring 14 / 1.97 / N/A / N/A / 1.81

The assessment team decided in Sp 14 term to look at IL issue more in depth, not just whether students had cited but whether they had used outside sources intelligently. Since the bar was set higher, the scores are not exactly comparable to previous semsters.

Strengths:
Most students distinguish their position from those of the authors they are discussing. Most students discuss at least one author. They tend not to plagiarize at all, and make some attempt at a well formatted bibliography.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Works cited pages are missing or absent from many papers. Many students do not cite at all and bibliographies are generally poorly formatted. Hardly any papers credited using an outside source.

PERSPECIVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION - Logical-Philosophical

Course/divisional learning outcomes assessed / Average score
Logical-Philosophical: Experience with analytic and/or philosophical reasoning, to examine fundamental questions of ethics, justice and epistemology
To what extent does a student engage in a philosophical discussion and analysis To what extent does the student “get” the problem or question at stake, and answer it appropriately. / Sp. 12 - 2.42
Sp. 13 - 2.43
Sp. 14 - 2.51
Strengths:
Students grasped the general philosophical issue or question at stake. Text explication was for the most part good. This is an important philosophical skill as well. Papers showed that students understood that there were several positions on the given issue and most students also took a position of their own.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Text explication could be more methodical – explaining authors’ arguments as a series of premises; using terms like premise, conclusion, assumption, etc. This is a way of getting at what’s at stake in an argument – trying to boil down a complicated or long paper into a few bullet points requires knowing what to look for and knowing what’s relevant for the problem to be addressed.
Students’ critical evaluation of arguments was often problematic, not well-support, or not well-argued for.
Students’ explanation of arguments was too driven by their own position instead of being fair and balanced to competing positions. There was very little mention of or attention to counter-arguments to students’ own position or assumptions.
Other comments:
Lots of ethics papers! Are we making good on justice and epistemology as well?

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This was round 3 of assessment in PHIL 102 class. Assessments were conducted once a year, for three years in a row by a team of instructors lead by the course coordinator Jennifer Morton. Based on early assessment data, faculty training sessions were instituted and led by Jennifer Morton before the beginning of each semester. The goal of these sessions was to familiarize instructors with requirements of the course and the General Education Program. During the sessions, assessment data and findings were shared with instructors with specific discussion on what constitutes effective writing assignments.
The effects of this work can be seen in round 3 of assessment. Students’ writing and critical thinking has improved. Also improved are the actual assignments which allow students to demonstrate their skills and knowledge. Based on these findings, assessment will not need to continue in the near future and current faculty development policy will remain in place. Additional recommendations to further help with student learning are listed below:
Institutional level:
·  Assign a WAC fellow to work with the department/course to develop guides for effective writing assignments and writing pedagogy
Departmental level:
·  Adopt department-wide standards for bibliographies and citations
In class:
·  Focus on organizing sentences in paragraphs so as to support the topic sentence. Discuss topic sentences with students. Tell students that one should be able to read the intro, topic sentences, and conclusion, and be able to understand the purpose of the essay, the thesis, how you defend it, and why it matters
·  Use templates for intro paragraph/thesis statements
·  Rethinking “evidence” in philosophy – it’s often other philosophical texts, but also can be personal anecdotes, psychology or sociology, literature, etc. Getting clear on what constitutes evidence and what evidence is appropriate for different claims
·  Assign very narrow topics help to focus the issue, and may help to aid in critical thinking. Use of book They Say/I Say may be helpful in all intro courses to explain the point of engaging in philosophical discourse and writing.
·  Explain how to build an argument so that each sentence builds on the previous one and leads to the conclusion (ideally, the topic sentence). Explain why one strong developed argument is better than having several unsubstantiated objections.
·  Discuss citation practices. Explicitly direct students to have a works cited page or the appropriate bibliographic information in footnotes. Freshman English should teach them how to construct a bibliography, how to cite papers, and possibly why to do it. Student could be given a template for their MS Word which already has citations built in.
·  Require students to use outside book source.
·  Add drama to philosophical problems. What’s really at stake in the problem of evil? Why does it matter whether there are rational arguments for the existence of God? Why does whether or not I have free will matter? Students should “get” that these are important questions. Organizing classes by questions or problems rather than topics might help.

* Scale 1-4 reflects the ability range from the beginning level to the accomplished level – it is meant as a “college span” scale; it is expected that the majority of freshmen would not be at the “accomplished” end of the scale.

1 – beginning 2- developing 3 – competent 4 – accomplished

General Education Program Learning Outcomes

Proficiencies

Writing and Communication Skills

The student will be able to:

·  formulate a clear thesis

·  provide coherent, unified and effective organization of a paper

·  develop abundant details and examples that provide evidence in support of sound logic

·  use standard diction, grammar and mechanics of English

Critical Thinking skills (adapted from AACU Critical Thinking VALUE rubric)

The student will be able to:

·  clearly frame an issue or problem and consider it critically

·  select, use, and evaluate information to investigate a claim or point of view

·  analyze his or her and others’ assumptions and evaluate relevance of contexts when presenting a position

·  present a position taking into account its complexities and limits as well as others points of view

·  develop logical conclusions based on evaluation of evidence

Information literacy skills

The student will be able to:

·  demonstrate a clear understanding of information needs and ability to search efficiently

·  effectively evaluate information sources

·  articulate credibility of sources

·  use information ethically

Perspectives

·  Artistic: An awareness of artistic issues from a critical perspective

·  Global History and Culture: Familiarity with belief systems, history, social dynamics of a society outside of the Euro-American tradition

·  Literary: An introduction to the methods and concerns of literary analysis, with close reading and attention to historical context

·  Logical/Philosophical: Experience with analytic and/or philosophical reasoning, to examine fundamental questions of ethics, justice and epistemology

·  Natural/Scientific and Natural/Scientific with an Interactive Component: Experience with the techniques and methodologies of science including experience gathering and interpreting data.

·  Self and Society: An awareness of ethical and societal justice as well as theories and methods in the study of individuals and society issues (gender, race, class, etc.)

·  US Society: Knowledge of selected events and key topics in the development of US society, through various tools and analytic approach.

1