Communication
Results of Assessment
2005-2006
(submitted 06/26/07)
Report – A&H Breadth
Area Assessment Funded Project 2005-2007
Prepared by Becky Johns, Phd and Hal Crimmel, Phd
The Arts and Humanities
Breadth Area Assessment Committee (June Phillips, Gary Godfrey, Angelika Pagel,
Scott Jensen, and Richard Greene) have been meeting for the past four years
(beginning Spring 2003). In order to move toward actual assessment across A&H
departments, a WSU Assessment Research Support Grant was applied for and granted
Spring semester, 2005. The following is the report for this Grant.
The original application
for this project:
I. PROJECT SUMMARY.
This project seeks to
provide support for the assessment of two learning outcomes in the Arts and
Humanities Breadth section of Weber State University’s General Education
program by completing a faculty-created, sponsored and implemented pre- and
post- artifact review, measurement and report, involving a randomly selected
number of student artifacts from classes in every Arts and Humanities
department during Spring semester, 2006 and continuing through Spring
semester, 2007.
PROJECT ABSTRACT:
The goal of this
project is to develop and pilot-test a program which will serve to assess
Weber State University’s College of Arts and Humanities General Education
Breadth area courses as a unit. This assessment program targets two
subjects already identified by Arts and Humanities faculty as learning
outcomes which should be evidenced by students who take the minimum number
of Arts and Humanities courses to complete their general education
requirements at WSU. The areas are: “The understanding of terminology used
in humanities and arts or a discipline within humanities and arts,” and
“Identifying the broad themes, and issues inherent in the arts and
humanities that cut across human history and experience.” This assessment
project entails the collection of early-semester student artifacts and
late-semester student artifacts from the most popular A&H general education
courses, the development of a set of rubrics to judge the amount and/or
quality of the learning students demonstrate in the two sets of artifacts,
and the creation of a report of these findings to be presented and discussed
among and with A&H faculty to determine adequacy of curriculum, pedagogy,
assessment techniques, and/or other pertinent issues.
II. BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH/PROJECT.
The
Problem:
Assessment in a large,
diverse, distributive or cafeteria-type general education university program
such as Weber State’s is difficult enough. An even more daunting task is to
create, implement and report an accurate, useful, faculty-driven, timely but
not time-consuming, inexpensive, well-documented, continuous, coherent
assessment program which will serve a number of different purposes and
audiences for the general education breadth area of Arts and Humanities at
WSU. The difficulties arise because of the widely divergent disciplines in
the college, the many ineffable but important learning outcomes associated
with A&H courses and a liberal arts education, as well as the fact that
WSU’s A&H college has the largest number of general education courses,
students taught, faculty, as well as the largest number of adjunct faculty
in the university teaching in the A&H general education program.
The proposed project
in this application is central to Weber State’s general education mission
and statement of goals. Specifically, the general education goals titled,
“Basic Knowledge of Core Disciplines,” with the elaborating statement, “Such
as demonstrating an understanding and appreciation of the diverse forms of
aesthetic and intellectual expression within the arts and humanities,” is
where this proposed project and the mission and goals fit most squarely. It
should be noted that this general education goal (as well as others) are
large, amorphous, and umbrella-like in that they can apply to such a wide
range of topics and skills as to be almost meaningless. The project
described below seeks to take this very general statement about general
education at WSU and operationalize the idea of general education in Arts
and Humanities in such a way that it is concrete, focused, significant and
meaningful. It should also be noted that the word “appreciation” used in the
WSU General Education Mission Statement and Goals is problematic for Arts
and Humanities. Because of the difficulty of defining and assessing a
student’s appreciation of such subjects as art, dance, theater, literature,
and music, most faculty in these disciplines have moved away from the word
“appreciation” to less problematic terms as “demonstrating knowledge and/or
understanding of a wide variety of meanings, uses, histories and
perspectives” relative to these subjects. The difference is that students
are not being assessed regarding their abilities or inclinations to
“appreciate” or not but rather, their knowledge, understanding and skill in
these subjects which may include an understanding of how one might
“appreciate,” how others have “appreciated” in the past, how “appreciation”
has changed over time and place, how “appreciation” or non-appreciation can
affect politics, relationships, power, and social conditions, and an
“appreciation” of how other cultures and individuals “appreciate” these
subjects.
The proposed project
described below also can be seen as relating to the “Social and Cultural
Factors” discussed in WSU’s general mission statement and goals in that the
specific A&H breadth goals we are focusing on in this study (A&H terminology
and broad themes inherent in Arts and Humanities) are connected directly to
“the ability to create principled, intellectually honest decisions using
knowledge, respect, and ethical conduct with regard to diverse people,
ideas, and cultures.” Without an understanding of the terms used to describe
concepts and an understanding of the broad themes inherent in Arts and
Humanities, the creation of “principled, intellectually honest decisions
using knowledge, respect, and ethical conduct with regard to diverse people,
ideas and cultures” would not be possible.
Significance of the
Problem:
Richard H. Hersh
laments in his Atlantic Monthly article of November, 2005, that
“Robust measurements don’t exist in college assessment,” and that
“Cumulative learning is rarely measured.” (pp.140-3). As standard
instruments to measure the kinds of outcomes found in A&H learning outcomes
are not available, faculty members must step up and produce useful and
accurate measurements and demonstrate their effectiveness to the general
public. Jerry D. Gaff and other participants of the Project on Strong
Foundations For General Education, Association of American Colleges and
Universities, argue in their book, Strong Foundations: Twelve Principles
for Effective General Education Programs (1994), that, “The old”
paradigm of general education as breadth only, involving a sampling of
academic departments, generally introduction courses with very little
faculty or administrative oversight, is failing. It has become for students
a “check-off list” and “something to get through as quickly as possible” so
that they can get on with their “real” education. Sadly, general education
courses are often disliked by faculty and considered only a necessary
“service” for the university so that they might be able to teach more
interesting courses in their major field of interest.
Gaff and other experts
warn about serious public concern over general education and the
“accountability” inclination of legislators and accrediting
institutions. Parents, faculty, university employees, community members,
employers, and students have also entered into this climate of concern as
evidenced in last year’s WSU survey and broad public conversation regarding
what a WSU graduate should know and be.
As one looks at the
survey results, such outcomes as communication competence, ability to think
critically, numerical and writing literacy, and information technology
competence all appear to be relatively easy to assess. At least, traditional
methods of assessment are pertinent with these outcomes. Other outcomes
mentioned in the survey results such as, “Think as a human and behave
humanely,” “Be a lifelong learner,” “Demonstrate a commitment to education,
community and others,” “Value diversity,” “Be able to adapt to a changing,
global, 21st century world,” “Be ethical, service-oriented and
contribute to society,” are certainly not as straight forward in how they
might be assessed and yet, are just as important as those we can assess
easily.
Our challenge is to
develop evolving, accurate, and continuing systems of assessment which will
be able to identify and measure these “ineffables” and demonstrate to all of
our publics that we, as an institution, are “adding value” to the lives of
our students and helping to produce “educated persons.”
Expected Outcomes:
-
Help to establish a vision for general education at
WSU by reviewing and/or revising the A&H gen ed breadth mission
statement and general education student learning outcomes.
-
Experiment with an assessment plan which will
measure two of the ineffables mentioned above and provide a report
capable of dissemination based on sound principles of knowledge
acquisition, performance and assessment. Specifically, this project
involves designing and applying learning rubrics in regard to A&H
terminology and inherent broad themes in Humanities to actual
student-generated artifacts across the Arts & Humanities disciplines of
Visual Art, Communication, English, Foreign Languages and Literature,
Dance, Music, and Theater that will capture student performance and
aggregate this data into a report which spans all of these disciplines
as a A&H general education program.
-
Product such a report by August 15, 2006 and be
prepared to continue to evolve and refine a process whereby A&H gen ed
learning outcomes can be accurately and usefully assessed.
-
As to the sustainability of this project and how it
might transform gen ed at WSU, we anticipate one or more of the
following as a result of this project:
-
If analysis of student artifacts suggests that
students are gaining adequate knowledge regarding terminology and
common broad themes in Humanities, no change in the present gen ed
program for A&H will be discussed or undertaken.
-
If analysis of artifacts does demonstrate some
knowledge or understanding gained in these two areas but knowledge
is superficial or inadequate, a greater effort to coordinate A&H
breadth courses with the A&H student learning outcomes and WSU's
General Education Mission Statement and Goals may be indicated. This
could be accomplished through training and consultation with faculty
or other efforts at building commonality such as "common threads" of
topics, speakers, books or other ways to produce such.
-
If analysis of artifacts does not demonstrate
adequate knowledge or understanding in these two areas, a
restructuring of the A&H general education breadth area in regard to
the distribution of courses may be indicated, including a possible
re-clustering of courses or a more restrictive number of courses
which would allow for more commonality in the breadth area. It is
possible that a discussion about the worth of the distribution
method of gen ed at WSU may be undertaken and eventually such system
fully or partially exchanged for a program of core A&H breadth
courses.
III. PROCEDURES AND
METHODS.
A committee of A&H
faculty and Dean June Phillips have been meeting and working on assessment
since 2001. So far this group has created and conducted a pilot survey
designed to measure student and faculty understanding of Arts and Humanities
as a field of inquiry in the spring of 2005 in a number of departments
across campus. The results of this survey are attached in the appendix to
this document. They have formulated a new A&H gen ed mission statement and
general set of outcomes. A draft of this document is attached in the
appendix to this form. We are now in the process of circulating the mission
statement and outcomes to faculty in all A&H departments and expect to
report back to the Gen Ed Ad Hoc Assessment committee regarding this effort
on Feb. 27, 2006. (A final draft of this document was submitted to WSU’s
Assessment committee, further refinement took place there and was sent to
the Faculty Senate In January, 2007 where it passed with no opposition.)
This committee has
also formulated a pre and post artifact assessment plan utilizing two
outcomes that were formerly on the A&H gen ed outcomes list. These two
outcomes are: (Area 1): “The understanding of terminology used in
humanities and arts or a discipline within humanities and arts,” and (Area
2): “Identifying the broad themes, and issues inherent in the arts and
humanities that cut across human history and experience.”
Artifacts embedded in
A&H gen ed courses, either in test questions or writing or other artifactual
evidence, have been identified by committee members and a selection of such
have been gathered in the Dean’s office during the first five weeks of
Spring semester, 2006. It is necessary now to have the committee identify
the rubrics by which these artifacts will be assessed as well as how the
post artifacts (coming in at the end of the semester from the same students
and courses) will be assessed. Once the rubrics have been identified and
inter-rater reliability among the assessors realized, both sets of artifacts
will be rated against a standard of achievement as well as a “progress
achieved across the semester” judgment made.
At this point it will
be possible to compose a report regarding this assessment project and the
ability of our students this semester to understand A&H terminology and
identify broad themes in A&H. (Such was accomplished both Summer semester,
2006 and Fall semester, 2006. Copies of these reports are attached).
IV. EVALUATION AND
DISSEMINATION.
The report generated
by the A&H gen ed assessment committee was forwarded to the Associate
Provost and disseminated at the back-to-school A&H meeting in the Fall of
2006 for discussion among faculty and possible action regarding curriculum
change, faculty development and/or training, revision of the A&H learning
outcomes, revision of the assessment methodology and conclusions, and/or
other possible actions.
ARTS & HUMANITIES GENERAL
EDUCATION BREADTH MISSION STATEMENT
(revised and approved March, 2006)
Becoming a well-educated person
requires growing, evolving, enriching and refining oneself as a human being and
contributing to a better world. Becoming well-educated involves learning to
interact with the world around us as well as preparing for a career.
A General Education in
Creative Arts and Humanities motivates us to:
- be curious about ourselves
and others
- value learning
- listen respectfully to the stories of others and recognize the value of
differing interpretations
- recognize multiple pathways to knowledge and their interconnectedness
- reflect, analyze and think critically about complex issues
- act from a basis of knowledge to effect needed change
The Weber State University
Creative Arts and Humanities General Education requirements help all students
discover their uniqueness and individuality while also recognizing the common
bonds that unite people everywhere.
Humanities and Creative Arts
General Education
Student Learning Outcomes
(passed WSU Assessment Committee, October 2006 and Faculty
Senate, January 2007)
Students satisfying the humanities
and creative arts general education requirement will gain skills, abilities,
and/or increase understanding in three areas.
Area 1: Students will improve or
develop at least two of the following skills:
A. oral, written, or graphic
communication
B. reasoning at an abstract level
C. approaching issues from multiple perspectives
D. using library, online databases, and other research sources
E. critical thinking, cognitive learning, and problem solving (both
individually and in groups)
Area 2: Students will demonstrate
knowledge and understanding of at least two of the following content areas:
F. key themes and principles
in a particular discipline in the arts or humanities
G. key terminology and/or vocabulary in a particular discipline in the
arts or humanities
H. the history, underlying theory(ies), and applicable ethical standards
in a particular discipline in the arts or humanities
I. the methodologies used in a particular discipline in the arts or
humanities or methodologies common in multiple arts
and
humanities disciplines
Area 3: Students will demonstrate
their ability to do at least two of the following:
J. identify broad themes and
issues in the arts or humanities
K. recognize and evaluate diverse philosophical, artistic, and
literary traditions, and the cultures that produce them, as
well as their
biases and influences that shape judgments and actions
L. gain proficiencies in a second language and its cultures
M. demonstrate an understanding of how the arts and humanities
disciplines express and solve problems
N. integrate knowledge and forge relationships within arts and humanities
O. integrate knowledge and forge relationships with other disciplines
The following report was circulated
at the A&H Back-to-School college meeting in August, 2007
-
Assessment of A&H General Education Breadth
Program Report
-
As many of you know, Northwest
Accreditation has mandated a more systematic assessment of the A&H
general education breadth area.
-
A&H is the most diverse WSU college,
with the most number of gen ed courses as well as the most widely
divergent general education courses in the university. A committee of
A&H faculty has been struggling with this challenge for three years now
(members presently include: myself, Dr. Gary Godfrey, Dr. Hal Crimmel,
Dr. Angelika Pagel, Dr. Scott Jensen, Dr. Richard Greene and Dr. Becky
Johns.) This committee, with input from many of you, has revamped the
A&H gen ed breadth mission statement and student learning outcomes.
(handouts passed out)
-
Last year the committee was able to
obtain a small assessment grant to conduct a pilot study. The committee
met this summer and looked at both student artifacts and student test
questions/answers. A preliminary report on their findings will be
available soon. This pilot project will be expanded this fall semester.
-
Department chairs have been asked to
identify faculty teaching general education courses to participate in
this pilot program. These volunteers will be asked to do one of two
options: either select artifacts of student assignments or papers, or
choose a pre- and post test format. The faculty member will identify the
A&H gen ed breadth learning outcome (see handout) which the assignment
or test question is designed to assess. These items will be forwarded to
the A&H Assessment committee for review and report production. No
student or faculty names will be associated with the final report.
-
As we continue this pilot project, we
are testing and refining the assessment plan or process itself. Your
ideas and participation are welcome and highly encouraged.
-
The artifacts collected as a result of
this pilot project will be used to determine the ability or inability of
our students to meet some of the A&H gen ed breadth learning
outcomes. This project is an opportunity to demonstrate our willingness
to meet the assessment mandate with meaningful data and to show our
various publics the “added value” of Arts and Humanities general
education courses.
Department volunteers will be contacted shortly
by the committee for further instructions. Thank you for your cooperation.
Summer 2006 Assessment Results
Using data from Theatre Arts,
Communication and English, the A&H Assessment committee met three times during
the summer of 2006 to create rubrics, compare assessment data, and analyze
results.
The data collected in the Spring of
2006 consisted of a survey of 56 Communication 2110 students (attached in
Appendix A) as to their knowledge and understanding of Humanities, two sets of
test questions from Theatre Arts 1023 Introduction to Film addressing two of the
A&H student learning outcomes (before fall revision), and thirty-five English
end-of-the-semester papers from two different courses, one lower and one upper
division.
During the
first meeting of the Summer 2006 meetings, A&H Assessment committee members
discussed study rationale, purposes and outcomes; created rubrics of student
written data and selected the type of data to be included in the pilot study.
In the second
meeting, the committee studied all three sets of data; revised the rubrics
instrument; discussed issues of inter-rater coder reliability in the application
of the instrument to the English papers, and determined to look at embedded test
questions from the Intro to Film course for the next phase of assessment.
During the
third meeting, members studied the embedded questions from the Intro to Film
class and agreed that “competency” for our purposes in determining if the
student learning outcomes were met by the evidence of the test scores would be
at the level of 80%. In other words, if 80% of the total number of students
enrolled in the course were able to answer the embedded question correctly, then
the student learning outcome had been achieved. This led to a great deal of
discussion regarding the skill of the test creator in capturing the student
learning outcomes, at what point in the semester was the student expected to be
competent in the student learning outcomes, and how would we know if the student
had come into the course already knowing (or not) what the embedded question
asked; thus not really providing to us a sense of what the student learned in
the course. These are not new assessment questions, but we grappled with these
issues nonetheless.
The ultimate
outcome of meeting number three was a decision to revise and enlarge our pilot
study and design it for a “value added” approach. The following is the plan as
proposed by the committee and implemented during Fall semester 2006.
A&H Assessment Project
(Distributed to A&H faculty at Back-to-School meeting, August, 2007)
General Education Assessment Next
Steps / Conclusions
(Based on Summer 2006 Pilot
Project)
Department chairs will need to
identify 5-7 instructors per semester, who will participate in general education
assessment.
At the Dean’s Retreat the A&H Gen
Ed committee will meet with these individuals to explain the pilot program and
their role in it.
Instructors will need to collect
either written artifacts that demonstrate several of the A&H Student Learning
Outcomes, or use a pre/post-test model that utilizes
an identical set of questions (determined by each instructor). Instructors using
this model will want to choose several questions to address chosen categories
from the learning outcomes document.
Goal of the pre/post test model
is to show value-added; we’ll need to involve Steve Kerr to help us develop statistically
meaningful data.
Aggregate data, instead of
individual tests, should be our focus at this stage.
Instructors will need to provide
a brief description of the assignment used for assessment,
and explain how & where the assignment meets specific general education
criteria.
Assessment forms will have only
two performance categories: Satisfactory, and Not Satisfactory.
We may conclude that all
artifacts are “Satisfactory,” which may indicate success;
it also might lead us to conclude we need to raise the performance bar, and/or
redefine the standards used in assessment.
Assessment teams will need to
develop a system to assure inter-reader reliability of assessment artifacts,
perhaps using the “anchor paper” model.
Progress Report to this date:
-
All departments have
participated in the revised pilot project and artifacts have been
collected. Assessment has not taken place yet of these artifacts as the
Dean asked us to wait until the middle of February when she would be
available to meet with the committee.
-
The Arts & Humanities General
Education Mission Statement has been revised and approved.
-
The Arts & Humanities General
Education student learning outcomes have been substantially revised,
approved and disseminated to all A&H faculty.
-
Rubrics for assessing student
learning in A&H have been created which appear to be acceptable and useful
across diverse departments and disciplines.
-
A new emphasis on assessment
in the college has re-vitalized an interest in general education courses
generally and brought the college together to consider the A&H general
education courses as a program rather than as separate individual courses in
separate individual departments.
-
It has become obvious to
committee and dean that A&H general education instructors (many of which are
adjuncts) have not been acquainted with, trained in, nor monitored regarding
A&H general education student learning outcomes and goals. This lapse in
attention and coordination has resulted in a lack of commonality in A&H
general education courses in purposes and outcomes. This, in turn, has made
assessment difficult. A number of quick fixes were suggested by the
committee including: (1) Communicating to A&H faculty (especially new and
adjunct faculty), the mission, goals and student learning outcomes set by
the college; (2) Requiring every A&H general education course syllabus
reflect a certain number of A&H student learning outcomes, (3) Monitoring
compliance with #2 by requiring each instructor to send a copy of his/her
syllabus to the dean’s office.
-
A more long-term solution to
our A&H general education assessment challenges includes: (a) who will
monitor the communication to A&H faculty about these expectations and what
consequences for non-compliance will follow? (b) How will a continuing
program of assessment in general education in A&H be encouraged and
sustained? What rewards (compensation, promotion and tenure credit) will be
created and implemented? Where will funds for such come from? (c) Once the
committee has tangible, reliable and valid assessment data from student
artifacts, what happens next? Will individual courses or instructors be
identified for training, mentoring or elimination? (d) How will the results
of this assessment data be returned to individual departments and
instructors in ways which will enable improvement in student learning? In
other words, how do we close the feedback loop?
-
The A&H general education
assessment committee has concluded that assessment of a cafeteria-style
general education program, involving a great many courses in the college and
university, spread out over a wide variety of disciplines (dance to
composition to public speaking, to name a few), and the often ineffable
nature of A&H student learning outcomes, makes our task an especially
difficult one. However, the time and attention given to this topic so far
has yielded profitable discussion, necessary self-reflection and inquiry,
and progress in coordinating the A&H general education depth area program at
WSU. There is much to do but we have also made substantial progress. It
appears our biggest challenge may be how to sustain our efforts, especially
in light of our dean’s soon departure and competing tasks and interests of
assessment committee members.
Prepared by: Becky Johns
Appendix of one data set attached
Hal Crimmel’s addition to report:
We collected artifacts and assessed them as a committee. We concluded that 1)
this process needs to be institutionalized (e.g., required) if it is to have any
chance of success just at the level of collecting artifacts. 2) There needs to
be money and/or release time to compensate faculty who serve on the assessment
committee, since it is so time consuming. 3) It's hard to assess the arts &
humanities but we feel the artifact system stands a chance of succeeding, if the
admin pieces are put into place.
Appendix A
| Survey: Humanities
General Education |
Spring Semester 06
Comm HU1020,
HU 2110 Johns 56 usable responses in two courses |
Area 1. This course
furthered my ability . . .
A.
To communicate more clearly in writing, orally or graphically
| Strongly agree |
= 21 |
| Agree |
= 30 |
| Disagree |
= 0 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 5 |
Comments:
"I saw my faults in
personal communication such as interrupting, talking too much, not listening
well and sometimes dominating the conversations, plus not reading between the
lines."
"I learned to communicate
well with my group members."
"Got
feedback on papers."
"Helped
me communicate well with others."
"Interaction
with my group and have seen fault in how I communicated with my spouse."
"Group
interactions improved my communication skills."
"I see my faults in how I
communicate with my kids."
"Interaction
with my group. Also learning the communication skills of men and women and how
they differ."
"I was able to interact
better with my group."
"I improved a great deal in
my speech anxiety."
"Learned how to use
outlines in public speaking."
"Speeches helped me to
speak better."
B.
. . . to use logic and improve your
reasoning skills
| Strongly agree |
= 7 |
| Agree |
= 30 |
| Disagree |
= 0 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 19 |
"You
learn to use logic and not just emotions to understand and develop skills and
concepts of effective communication."
"Recognized
what type of communication that is needed to be used at different times."
"Looked at particular
theories."
"We looked at certain
situations and then looked at how we could solve them."
"Applied theories and
reasoning skills when communicating."
"Theorizing on particular
situations improved my reasoning skills."
"How I communicate my
reasons of feeling to my children."
"Reasoning in the
differences the way women communicate as opposed to men."
C.
. . . use information technology
| Strongly agree |
= 21 |
| Agree |
= 30 |
| Disagree |
= 0 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 5 |
"Used
film (DVD/VHS) in class and was able to check my grade online."
"Learned to look up our
grades on the internet."
"Used databases in library
for researching speeches."
"Used the internet to
research different topics."
"The course allowed for use
and ability in information technology by using the computer to research
different topics."
D.
. . . to use the library and other research sources
| Strongly agree |
= 10 |
| Agree |
= 13 |
| Disagree |
= 10 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 23 |
"I can do personal research
as well as use the internet to understand these concepts more. The coursework
pretty much gave all the information I needed. Good book."
"Didn't
use library, used the internet."
"Research sources were used
in studying small group communication."
E.
. . . to think more critically and/or to solve problems through analysis
| Strongly agree |
= 28 |
| Agree |
= 25 |
| Disagree |
= 0 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 3 |
"I can solve communication
problems better, empathize, understand relationships and more especially work in
groups better (like my group project)."
"We had to plan out our
service project."
"Analyze situations."
"We had to plan a project
and do it and then we had to present it in class."
"Had to plan a project,
coordinated with group members and execute project."
"Planning and executing of
group projects furthered my ability to analyze and solve problems."
"I try to think before I
speak."
"We were required to put
forth a group effort to complete a group community project."
"Working with our group to
do the class service project."
"To plan and execute our
group project."
Area 2: In this course I
gained a better understanding of . . .
F.
. . . the foundations or themes of humanities
| Strongly agree |
= 35 |
| Agree |
= 13 |
| Disagree |
= 0 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 8 |
"Effective communication
and relationships will improve your work and personal life."
"If communicating as a
human being is humanities, then yes."
"If communication is a
theme and being able to communicate with others is a foundation, yes."
"Communication is a basic
theme of humanities and learning the course material built on this theme."
"I use some of the
foundation of communication to better communicate in my everyday life."
"We dealt with
communication with humans which is the most important aspect of humanities."
"We learned about
communicating better then it helps to make us better human beings."
G.
. . . the terms used to discuss humanities
| Strongly agree |
= 25 |
| Agree |
= 23 |
| Disagree |
= 0 |
| Strongly Disagree |
= 0 |
| No Opinion |
= 6 |
"Ethnocentricism,
groupthink, perception, false dichotomies, and more."
"Yes, they are all parts of
communication like transactional, synergy, culture, gender perception."
"Vocabulary terms like
confirmation bias, empowerment, groupthink."
"We talked about listening
and communication terms and interculturalism as well as empowerment."
"Communication terms:
interculturalism power (empowerment), transactional process, synergy, culture
and gender, groupthink, etc."
"The terms of power,
interculturalism, synergy all apply to the discipline and helped to gain a
better understanding of the discipline."
"There were many terms used
and many I found myself on the negative side which I am trying to change."
"We learned about
perception, synergy, small groups and cultures."
Mission
Statement /
Student
Learning Outcomes / Curriculum
Grid / Assessment Plan
/ Contact Person
|
