Los Angeles Valley College

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report

Courses and Programs

Discipline: Philosophy Department: Philosophy/Economics/Jewish Studies

Program/Course: Philosophy 45 Semester/Year: Fall 2013

SLO Representative: Zachary Knorr Department Chair: Dr. Ercument Aksoy

I. Student Learning Outcome Assessed / Be able to critically assess the strength of arguments in the field of philosophy of labor
II. Description of Assessment Method
a.  Describe the assessment tool (e.g., student essay, performance, etc.)
b.  Describe how the data was analyzed (rubric elements, etc.). Attach rubric if applicable.
*** Please keep all data for at least 3 years. / a.  An essay was be assigned in which students were asked to assess the strength of arguments in the field of philosophy of labor.
b.  A rubric was used (see attached rubric)
III. Description of Sampling Methodology
a.  Course Sections - How many sections of this course were offered?
If there were more than one section offered – i) State if the sections were offered in the morning /afternoon /evening/ online.
ii) How many sections were assessed?
iii) Describe how these sections represent the diversity of students represented in the course.
b.  Faculty - How many faculty (part-time and full-time) taught this course? How many faculty participated in the SLO assessment process?
c.  Students - How many students in total were enrolled? How many students were assessed?
d.  Sampling (If this course offered more than one section, at least 1/3 of the total # of students must be assessed) - How was the sampling process conducted? (e.g., chose every 3rd student from roster) / a.  1 section of this course was offered
b.  One faculty member taught the course and one faculty member participated in the assessment process
c.  39 students were enrolled but since only 31 turned in the assigned essay only 31 were assessed
d.  N/A
IV. Collaborative Review
a.  Describe the norming process and how inter-rater reliability was achieved (if applicable). / N/A
V. Assessment Results
a.  Describe the relevant findings according to the criteria set by the assessment tool. (e.g., report results according to rubric evaluation criteria) / The rubric assessed the students’ performance on the assigned essay in four different areas (Quality of understanding, Argument, Organization, and Style). For each of these areas, students could receive either Excellent, Good, Poor/Needs Improvement, or Unacceptable. The results for the four categories were as follows:
Quality of Understanding: Excellent 6, Good 16, Poor/Needs Improvement 9, Unacceptable 0
Argument: Excellent 6, Good, 21, Poor/Needs Improvement 4, Unacceptable 0
Organization: Excellent 6, Good 20, Poor/Needs Improvement 5, Unacceptable 0
Style: Excellent 3, Good 16, Poor/Needs Improvement 12, Unacceptable 0
The majority of our students achieved the SLO according to all four categories of our measurement (defining achieved as receiving either excellent or good evaluations). Given that this is a class focusing on critical thinking, we were especially pleased to see that 27/31 students met the SLO in terms of their analysis of philosophical arguments. However, it is clear that we need to improve our students’ performance on the style aspect of the assignment. While a majority of students achieved the SLO 19/31, 12 of our students needed improvement in that aspect of their performance.
VI. How Results were Used for Course/Program Improvement
a.  Describe how the results are going to be used for the improvement of teaching, learning, or institutional effectiveness based on the data assessed.
b.  List any additional resources necessary to implement the improvement plan.
c.  How do your assessment findings contribute to the achievement of your Program SLO’s? (To access the program SLO’s -http://lavc.edu/slo/programassessment.html/ and/or contact your Department Chair for the Program Alignment Grid).
d.  Describe how results will be shared with others in the discipline/area. / a.  Next time we teach this class we will spend more time on the process of writing a well organized and stylistic paper. This will include additional short writing assignments as well as at least one hour spent in class discussing the rules and expectations of good paper writing. In addition, we will assign several small group exercises focusing on some of the conceptual subtleties that some of our students struggled with this semester
b.  We will not need additional resources to implement this plan
c.  Philosophy 45 helps us meet all four of our department goals: Reasoning Skills, Communication Skills, Global Awareness, and Personal Responsibility and Awareness. The fact that most of our students are meeting all of our SLOs shows that Philosophy 45 is having a positive impact on meeting these objectives.
d.  These results will be distributed via email to other members of our department and we will also discuss the results together in our next department meeting
VII. Comparison to last SLOAC Cycle Results (if this is the first time the course was assessed, leave this section blank)
a.  Please state the improvement plan that was included in the report from the previous SLOAC cycle.
b.  What changes were implemented from the previous SLOAC cycle’s improvement plan? What changes, if any, were made that were not included in the improvement plan? What changes, if any, were made to the assessment process?
c.  How are the results from this SLOAC cycle similar to or different from the results from the previous cycle? / This was the first time that this course has ever been offered at LAVC.

Insert Rubric or Assessment Tools below:

Assessment Rubric for Philosophy 45

Course SLO: Be able to critically assess the strength of arguments in the field of philosophy of labor

Evaluation materials: Essay assignment

1. Quality of Understanding

Excellent: The essay demonstrates an excellent command of the material presented in class lectures. The essay presents complete information and shows a complete grasp of the conceptual issues and subtleties.

Good: The essay demonstrates a reasonably good command of the material presented in class. There may be some inaccurate information or interpretive issues, but for the material is presented accurately.

Poor/Needs Improvement: The essay demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material presented in class. There may be a fact which is correct, but the answer as a whole is unsatisfactory.

Unacceptable: The information presented in the essay is incorrect or the question(s) is/are left unanswered.

2. Argument

Excellent: The essay provides a clear answer to the question that is supported by accurate background information. The essay demonstrates an excellent command of both general and specific information on events, names, dates and places which answer the question.

Good: The essay demonstrates a reasonably good command of both general and specific information on events, names, dates and places which answer the question. Some factual material may be inaccurate, but the essay provides a satisfactory answer to the question.

Poor/Needs Improvement: The essay demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material. While individual facts may be correct, the answer as a whole is unsatisfactory in relation to the question.

Unacceptable: The essay is entirely incorrect or is left unanswered.

3. Organization:

Excellent: The essay provides a clear answer to the question, presenting the factual information in the correct chronological order. The essay contains only information that is pertinent to answering the question. The essay presents this information simply and clearly.

Good: The essay provides a clear answer to the question. Some factual information may be out of chronological order or missing. The essay contains only information that is pertinent to answering the question. The essay presents this information simply and clearly.

Poor/Needs Improvement: The essay fails to provide a clear answer to the question. While some factual information may be correct, the essay does not present the material in an organized manner. There may be extraneous information that does not relate to the answer and/or the essay may be unclear.

Unacceptable: The essay fails to answer the question or is left unanswered. The information presented is factually incorrect or completely irrelevant to the question.

4. Style:

Excellent: All sentences are complete and grammatical. All terms are well-defined and all concepts are accurately and completely explained. Good and clear examples are used to illustrate key points. Essay has been proofread and contains no spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.

Good: All sentences are complete and grammatical. Most terms are well-defined and most concepts are accurately and completely explained. Good and clear examples are used to illustrate most key points. The essay has been proofread and contains no spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.

Poor/Needs Improvement: A few sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Many terms are poorly defined and most concepts are inaccurately or incompletely explained. Most key points are not illustrated by good and clear examples. Essay has not been properly proofread and contains several spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.

Unacceptable: Many sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Terms and concepts are not defined or accurately explained. There is no discernible structure to the essay. The essay has not been proofread at all and contains many spelling errors, rhetorical questions, or slang.