Shepard Hall Room 101

160 Convent Avenue

Office of Undergraduate StudiesNew York, NY 10031

GENERAL EDUCATION (W)PERSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Date of report: / June 2013
Course: / PHIL 10200 Introduction to Philosophy
Materials used, n: / 27 sample papers
Rubric/Scoring standard used: / Gen Ed Writing, Critical Thinking, and Information Literacy Rubrics
Date of assessment: / June, 2013
Assessment Team
Members: / Jennifer Morton, Trevor Arthur, Alejandra Iannone
Coordination/Oversight: / Joshua Wilner, Senior Faculty Advisor for Undergraduate Education
Ana Vasović, Coordinator for General Education

WRITING SKILLS

Writing – average scores *
Thesis / Structure and Organization / Evidence and Development / Mechanics and Style
2.20 / 2.33 / 2.44 / 2.27
Strengths:
Most students had a thesis that stated their position. The essays were generally organized, including introductions, supporting paragraphs with topic sentences and conclusions.Students incorporated and interpreted evidence. They used summary, paraphrase and direct text citation.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Some of the essays had serious typographical, grammatical, and spelling errors.Some of the language in these papers was too informal.Thesis often lacked complexity. Instead, students either agreed or disagreed. Though overall essay structure was solid, some students had trouble breaking up their ideas into smaller paragraphs and sentences within paragraphs weren’t always logically organized. The textual evidence included in these papers was extensive but often strategically ineffective. Students did not always defend its relevance.
Other comments:
Overall, there was improvement over last year.

CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

Critical thinking – average scores *
Explanation of issues / Evidence / Context & Assumptions / Student's Position / Conclusions
2.56 / 2.50 / 2.38 / 2.15 / 2.06
Strengths:
All papers recognized and acknowledged a central issue or problem under consideration. Some students succeeded in considering a published position through a critical lens (often taking on the view of another philosopher) instead of taking it as uncontestable.Certain students provided satisfactory attempts at arguing for a thesis of their own, and many of the students considered an objection to the claims they endorsed in their papers.Most of the papers concluded with an overview of some of the tasks that had been completed in the paper.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Some students weren’t critical of their own position and didn’t consider objections. Students who did state objections to their own position often did not respond to the objection. Many students’ arguments were too general, ambitious, or not well-supported by the evidence.The conclusion of most papers wasn’t well supported by the arguments offered in the paper. Many of the papers did not demonstrate sufficient intellectual independence on the part of the students. Instead of presenting their own position on the central issue or problem, the majority of the students explained two contrasting arguments and picked a side. Perhaps in partthe fault of the assignment.
Other comments:
Again, there was improvement here over last year in so far as students were making attempts at putting forward a position of their own.

INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS

Information Literacy – average scores *
Understand info needs/ search efficiently / Evaluate info sources / Credibility of sources / Use info ethically
N/A / N/A / N/A / 2.85
Strengths:
Most students seem to have a basic understanding of the necessity of citation and gave a paper number and author.The sources that students’ cited were mostly credible ones, or primary sources.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Few students had a works cited page or provided bibliographic information.Many students are unaware of MLA or Chicago conventions. It is unclear what system the students were asked to cite according to, as citation styles were inconsistent.Potentially quite a bit of paraphrased material was included, but not acknowledged.

PERSPECIVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Perspective category:Logical-Philosophical

Course learning outcome assessed: Demonstrate familiarity with philosophical content

Average score: 2.43

Strengths:
Most students did a good job at explaining the central arguments they were discussing and demonstrated awareness and general understanding of important philosophical questions. Generally students seemed to understand the basic logic of arguments, as well as the importance of evaluating arguments in order to assess positions.
Few students seems to be receiving a very broad introductory education in philosophy, one that provides a fundamental understanding of the primary domains of philosophy historically, as well as proficiency in the general lexicon that accompanies them; i.e. metaphysics, ontology, ethics, epistemology, logic, aesthetics, political philosophy, philosophy of science, religion, art, education, etc.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Some student’s understanding of the arguments lacked depth and nuance. Students misunderstood or inaccurately communicated nuanced elements of the texts they responded to.
The papers demonstrated very little understanding of what is at stake in philosophical questions.
Other comments:
Assignments which are focused on hot-button political issues (e.g. abortion) do not further understanding of philosophical content, and they rather serve to reduce philosophy to nothing more than reasoned critical debate or basic logical analysis. Philosophy is an historical discipline (perhaps THE historical discipline), and it is best conveyed as such, rather than as merely a tool with which to determine who’s right and who’s wrong in any given situation.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

To be done by the Gen Ed office:
  • Communicate with instructors about the goals / learning outcomes of General Education
  • Share rubrics information with instructors
  • Provide instructors with the research paper checklist to be shared with students
To be done by the department:
  • Reinforce communication with instructors about the goals / learning outcomes of General Education
  • Consider a standard of citation in student papers
  • Continue with training workshops for instructors before the beginning of semester providing guidance on, among other things,effective writing assignments and proper citation style
To be done by instructors - Provide guidance for students on:
  • Finessing their theses to be more concrete and specific. Rather than “I will argue that I support abortion”, “I will argue in support of abortion on the basis of X, Y, and Z.”
  • Organizing sentences between paragraphs and how to break up text into logically coherent paragraphs
  • Explaining the components of certain key elements of a philosophy paper, especially a thesis
  • Using ‘signposts’ (that is, signal word or subtitles) to identify the purpose of the paragraphs they write, their relationships to the paper, and to other paragraphs.
  • Structuringintroductory and concluding paragraphs in the manner considered standard for contemporary philosophy articles
  • Allowing more freedom in designing essay topics (rather than assigned topics which often frame the question ahead of time, perhaps extinguishing the creative instinct on the student’s part)
  • Considering an objection to their view and responding to it.
  • Explaining the processes of summary, analysis, and interpretation throughout the semester, and having the students practice these tasks regularly (perhaps by limiting this process to only one text that the student has to engage with in a focused manner, and respond to in a structured, critical fashion)
  • Explaining the appropriate methods and moments for in text citation.
  • To allow for a profound and significant understanding of the texts assigned (and their nuances) instructors should consider spending more time on each text (thus cutting back on materials covered in the course), and providing activities for the students that would demonstrate to them the personal and everyday relevance of what they read.

* 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

1