General Education Assessment Report Template
Academic Year: Choose an item.
2018-2019
Course Name/Catalog Number: First-Year Seminar/COE 103
General Education Component: First-Year Seminar
UULO(s) assessed this year:
☒ Intellectual Breadth/Life-long Learning
☒ Inquiry/Critical Thinking
☒ Communication
☒ Global/Multicultural Knowledge and Awareness
☒ Citizenship & Ethics
Other learning outcomes assessed this year: SLO 5: Writing
Process: Please provide a brief narrative of the assessment process for this course. Include a description
of the type of student work assessed (e.g., research papers, exams, etc.), the number and roles of people
involved in the process, any tools used for the assessment (e.g., checklists, rubrics, etc.), and how student
learning was evaluated.
The assessment process for this course included direct and indirect assessment of student learning. For the
direct assessment, student position papers (see Appendix 1) were randomly selected from fall 2018 COE
103 sections (N = 8). These papers were assessed by nine COE FYS/SYS instructors and one FYS/SYS
coordinator on March 29, 2019 using the AAC&U Written Communication VALUE rubric (see
Appendix 2). The instructors and coordinator normed the rubric, scored the samples, and debriefed about
initial thoughts about the assessment. The assessment was discussed again with instructors on May 3,
2019 and May 22, 2019. The data and averages for each section of the VALUE rubric are included in
Appendix 3.
The indirect assessment consisted of a Learning Outcomes Survey that was electronically distributed to
students in fall 2018 (57.9% response rate). Survey results are included in Appendix 4.
Results: Please provide a brief summary of the results of your assessment process. Include both what you
learned about your students’ achievement of the specified learning outcomes and what you learned about
the assessment process itself, if applicable.
The results of our direct assessment appeared to evidence students performing at a first-year
level for written communication (See Appendix 3). These results also evidenced a large
fluctuation of student writing ability in COE 103. Certain students wrote above a first-year level,
while others were clearly writing below a first-year level as specified by the VALUE rubric.
Similar to previous years, we found it extremely helpful to have FYS/SYS instructors participate
in this direct assessment. Our initial discussion in March after scoring student work samples and
our ongoing discussions in May were very fruitful for generating ideas and suggestions for
course and program revision to support written communication.
The results of our indirect assessment indicated that students perceived they improved
moderately to much on their progress on UULOs (Table 6, Appendix 4). These results also
indicated that students perceived a moderate to great amount of intellectual, personal, and
social growth (Table 5, Appendix 4), were somewhat to strongly satisfied with faculty respect for
students, their classroom instruction, and sense of belonging on campus (Table 4, Appendix 4).
In relation to the assessment process, like previous years, we confirmed that providing time
during class for students to take this assessment was helpful to secure a higher response rate
(57.9%). We will continue to encourage instructors to allow in-class time for this survey.
Conclusions: Please describe how the results of this assessment process might be used to revise
instruction in this course and/or refine the assessment process in future years.
The results of our direct assessment process and subsequent discussions and brainstorming
sessions with our FYS/SYS instructors led us to revise our position paper assignment rubric for
fall 2019. This revised rubric will provide additional scaffolding for students to support their
written communication with specific guidelines and grading criteria for each section of the
assignment (i.e., grading criteria for Less than Adequate, Adequate, and Exemplary writing for
each section). The FYS/SYS coordinator is working with the College of Education Coordinator of
Assessment to craft this rubric.
The results of our indirect assessment process indicated that our FYS program is thriving and our
students are learning the skills and knowledge necessary to promote academic success and
retention. One refinement to our indirect assessment process that we will implement in fall 2019
is the addition of a pre-post test focusing on our SLO’s. The FYS/SYS coordinator is working in
summer 2019 with the College of Education Coordinator of Assessment to create this pre-post
test. It is hoped that this additional indirect assessment of our SLO’s will enhance our
understanding of student learning and potentially guide future assessment efforts.
Appendices: Please attach any applicable assignment descriptions, rubrics, results tables, or graphic
representations of results.
Taking Sides Position Paper Instructions
(a) Position Paper (Final): You will write a 4-6 page formal position paper on the issue
examined in the Taking Sides text. Your position must be informed by the “Yes” and
“No” sides of this issue presented in this text.
1. You will submit a 2-3 page draft of your paper for in-class revision and feedback.
The content of your Final Paper will include the following:
1. An overall introduction to the issue. What exactly is the issue at hand? What is
your paper going to be about? What are we looking at here?
2. Your position on the issue. What is your position? Why do you take this
position? What information supports your position? Be sure to be clear about
your position. Go in-depth as to why you take it, and what is out there to support
it.
3. The opposing side of the issue. What does the other side say? What are the
objections to your position? How would someone who takes a different position
make their case? What information supports the opposing side?
4. The refutation of the opposing side. Why are the objections raised by the
opposing side incorrect and/or not persuasive? Why is the information supporting
the opposing side not persuasive in comparison to your own position?
5. Bring it back to your position and summarize it for the reader. Briefly state why
you still maintain your personal position, even though there are objections.
Your final paper will include these headings (corresponding with the grading rubric):
Introduction
My Position
Opposing Position
Refutation of Opposing Position
Position Summary
References
*Any and all information (e.g., idea, statement, fact, figure, etc.) that comes from a
source must be appropriately cited within the content of your paper and referenced in
either APA 6th edition or MLA formatting.
Appendix 2: VALUE Rubric
Appendix 3: Fall 2018 Direct Assessment Data and Averages
Paper Context Content Disciplinary Conventions
Sources Writing Mechanics
1NMS 1 0.75 0.25 1 1.25
1NVA 1.5 0.25 1.5 1.5 0.5
1AVG 1.25 0.5 0.875 1.25 0.875
2NMS 2 2 3 1 3
2DO 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2
2AVG 2.25 2.25 3.00 1.75 2.50
3MAS 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.50
3DAO 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
3AVG 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25
4AG 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00
4AJ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4DAO 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50
4II 1.86 2.00 1.70 1.20 1.70
4KMF 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.50 2.00
4LAK 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
4MAS 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50
4MS 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75
4NMS 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00
4NVA 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.75
4AVG 1.96 1.75 1.85 2.12 1.82
5MS 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3
5NMS 2.25 2.5 2.5 2.75 2
5AVG 2.13 2.50 2.50 2.63 2.50
6AG 1 1 0.75 1 1
6MS 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1
6AVG 1.00 0.75 0.63 0.75 1.00
7NMS 0.5 0.75 0.5 1 1
7DO 1 1 1 2 2
7AVG 0.75 0.88 0.75 1.50 1.50
8NMS 1.75 1 1.25 1 2
8DO 2 1.5 2 2 2
8AVG 1.88 1.25 1.63 1.50 2.00
9AG 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
9DAO 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00
9AVG 3.00 2.75 2.75 3.00 2.50
10AJ 3.75 4.00 3.75 3.00 3.50
10II 1.00 2.50 2.10 3.00 3.00
10AVG 2.38 3.25 2.93 3.00 3.25
11DAO 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00
11NMS 2.00 1.00 0.50 1.25 0.50
11AVG 2.50 2.00 1.25 2.13 1.25
12AG 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.50
12AJ 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.50 3.20
12II 1.90 1.80 2.10 2.00 1.00
12KMF 2.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
12LAK 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
12MAS 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00
12MS 3.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00
12NMS 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.50
12NVA 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00
12DAO 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00
12AVG 2.44 2.28 2.21 2.40 2.17
13LAK 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
13NVA 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00
13AVG 1.38 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.50
14MAS 4.00 4.00 4.00
1.00
14MS 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75
14AVG 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.88
15KMF 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.50 1.50
15NMS 1.75 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00
15AVG 2.13 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75
16MAS 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50
16MS 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.75 1.00
16AVG 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.88 1.25
17MAS 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50
17MS 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00
17AVG 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50
18AG 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00
18AJ 2.75 3.25 3.00 3.25 3.00
18AVG 2.38 2.38 2.25 2.63 2.00
19AG 1.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 1.00
19KMF 3.50 2.50 3.50 1.50 1.00
19AVG 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.00
20AG 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
20LAK 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
20AVG 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.00
21KMF 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.50
21NVA 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.50
21AVG 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.75 2.50
22AG 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00
22KMF 1.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.50
22AVG 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25
23KMF 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.50 3.00
23MAS 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00
23AVG 1.50 2.00 0.75 1.25 2.50
24AG 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.00
24LAK 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
24AVG 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.75 2.00
COE 103 Fall 2018 Averages
Paper Context Content Disciplinary Conventions
Sources Writing Mechanics
1AVG 1.25 0.5 0.875 1.25 0.875
2AVG 2.25 2.25 3.00 1.75 2.50
3AVG 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25
4AVG 1.96 1.75 1.85 2.12 1.82
5AVG 2.13 2.50 2.50 2.63 2.50
6AVG 1.00 0.75 0.63 0.75 1.00
7AVG 0.75 0.88 0.75 1.50 1.50
8AVG 1.88 1.25 1.63 1.50 2.00
COE 103 AVG 1.65 1.48 1.62 1.62 1.68
COE 202 Fall 2018 Averages
Paper Context Content Disciplinary Conventions
Sources Writing Mechanics
9AVG 3.00 2.75 2.75 3.00 2.50
10AVG 2.38 3.25 2.93 3.00 3.25
11AVG 2.50 2.00 1.25 2.13 1.25
12AVG 2.44 2.28 2.21 2.40 2.17
13AVG 1.38 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.50
14AVG 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.88
15AVG 2.13 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.75
16AVG 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.88 1.25
17AVG 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50
18AVG 2.38 2.38 2.25 2.63 2.00
19AVG 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.00
20AVG 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.00
21AVG 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.75 2.50
22AVG 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25
23AVG 1.50 2.00 0.75 1.25 2.50
24AVG 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.75 2.00
COE 202 AVG 2.14 2.17 2.04 2.03 1.77
Appendix 4 Learning Outcomes Survey Report: Fall 2018
COE 103 Participation
Table 1. Responses to LOS by FYS Course – Fall 2018 Course # Sections Enrollment LOS Responses Response Rate
COE 103 9 197 114 57.9%
Total 101 3097 1581 51.0%
Responses
Colleges and Schools Table 2. LOS Responses by Course and College – Fall 2018
Acade
mic
Success
Cente
r E
ducatio
n
Fin
e A
rts
Lib
era
l A
rts
Urb
an
Affa
irs
Eng
ineerin
g
Busin
ess
Hote
l
Scie
nces
Alli
ed H
ealth
Scie
nces
Pub
lic
Health
Nurs
ing
Oth
er
Tota
l
COLA 100E 382 7 22 19 12 32 43 9 30 21 6 28 7 618
COE 103 3 73 6 14 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 7 3 114
CFA 100 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 28
COLA 100LA 2 1 3 31 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 4 2 49
GSC 100 2 0 1 1 85 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 96
EGG 101 2 0 0 3 1 163 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 174
BUS 103 4 0 2 1 0 0 71 1 0 0 0 0 0 79
TCA 103 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 24
SCI 101 22 1 1 5 2 5 5 0 199 5 5 15 0 265
HSC 100 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 51 4 72 2 134
Total 419 82 62 76 103 202 123 35 233 84 16 131 15 1581
Employment
Table 3. Weekly Hours of Employment by Course and Relation to Major – Fall 2018
Related to Major Number of Hours Spent Weekly in
Employment
Unrelated to Major None Part-time
(1 to 30 hrs) Full-time
(31+ hours)
COE 103 75.44% 21.05% 3.51%
44.25% 46.90% 8.85%
Total 80.62% 17.08% 2.29%
49.20% 43.08% 7.71%
Student Satisfaction
Table 4. Student Satisfaction by Course – Fall 2018
Overall Mean
Overall SD
COE 103 Mean
COE 103 SD
Class size 4.40 0.626 4.54 0.568
Availability of faculty for office appointments
4.40 0.705 4.48 0.778
Faculty respect for students 4.51 0.579 4.41 0.670
Quality of academic advising by advising centers
4.43 0.699 4.36 0.759
Quality of developmental, tutorial, and remedial services
4.32 0.661 4.35 0.763
UNLV in general 4.35 0.661 4.33 0.758
Diversity of faculty and staff 4.50 0.645 4.31 0.773
Quality of my program of study 4.33 0.672 4.26 0.799
Quality of instruction 4.29 0.645 4.24 0.649
Informal contact with faculty in non-academic settings
4.26 0.671 4.22 0.670
Concern for me as an individual 4.21 0.733 4.17 0.826
My sense of belonging on this campus 4.21 0.761 4.15 0.807
Flexible degree requirements 4.11 0.753 4.00 0.780
Availability of Courses 3.89 0.874 3.81 0.869
Note. 1 = N/A, 2 = Strongly Dissatisfied, 3 = Somewhat Dissatisfied, 4 = Somewhat Satisfied, 5 = Strongly Satisfied 1 (N/A) responses were not included in the calculation of the mean
UNLV Contributed to Personal Growth Table 5. Student Growth and Preparation by Course – Fall 2018
Overall Mean
Overall SD
COE 103 Mean
COE 103 SD
Intellectual growth 3.78 0.876 3.53 0.875
Personal growth 3.84 0.977 3.62 0.990
Social growth 3.62 1.077 3.49 1.062
Preparation for further study 3.82 0.911 3.71 0.951
Preparation for career 3.68 1.022 3.60 1.098
Note. 1 = None, 2 - Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Great, 5 = Very Great
First-Year Seminar and UULOs
Table 6. Student Progress on UULOs by Course – Fall 2018
Overall Mean
Overall SD
COE 103 Mean
COE 103 SD
Improve my inquiry and critical thinking skills
3.73 1.117 3.82 1.029
Improve my written communication skills
3.63 1.144 3.77 1.041
Improve my oral communication skills
3.57 1.173 3.72 1.067
Increase my global knowledge and awareness
3.78 1.112 3.78 1.079
Increase my multicultural knowledge and awareness
3.67 1.156 3.78 1.073
Increase my understanding of rights and responsibilities regarding citizenship
3.68 1.197 3.84 1.079
Increase my understanding of ethics
3.88 1.104 3.89 1.028
Note. 1 = None, 2 - Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Much, 5 = Very Much