1 / 13

Assessment Review Committee Report College of Fine Arts and Communication ( CFAC)

Assessment Review Committee Report College of Fine Arts and Communication ( CFAC). Jeffrey Ward, Associate Dean for Assessment April 7, 2014. 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research. COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS AND COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

orson-clemons
Télécharger la présentation

Assessment Review Committee Report College of Fine Arts and Communication ( CFAC)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment Review CommitteeReportCollege of Fine Arts and Communication (CFAC) Jeffrey Ward, Associate Dean for Assessment April 7, 2014 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research

  2. COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS AND COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT REVIEW PROCESS STEP ONE: UAC’s input 2012-13 results and actions and 2011-12 follow-up to actions in TracDat by September 15 in consultation with the Interim Associate Dean for Assessment, if necessary. STEP TWO: School Director, using a Word document version of the IPAR Review Rubric, provides feedback to UAC. If deemed appropriate by the school director, a copy of these rubrics can be made available to the Interim Associate Dean for Assessment. UAC’s make changes based on director feedback, if necessary. Faculty reviews and approves plan by October 1. STEP THREE: Interim Associate Dean for Assessment reviews and provides feedback to UAC. UAC makes changes based on Associate Dean for Assessment feedback, if necessary, by October 15. 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  3. COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS AND COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT REVIEW PROCESS 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  4. 2012-13 Component Data 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  5. Data Visualization 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  6. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop”BFA in Theatre Arts Outcome: Students’ Voices: Students work to improve their voices and to lessen the amount of vocal fry, nasality, and glottal attacks in their voices. Means of Assessment: Recording students' voices at the beginning and the end of the semester, and listening to and assessing the improvement with the instructor and the student. Criteria for Success: At least 95% of the students should achieve "Moderate Improvement" or above in all three areas of eliminating vocal fry, nasality, and glottal attacks. At least 50% of the students should achieve "Marked Improvement" in all three areas. Please see attached Rubric. 2012-2013 Results: 96% of the students achieved "Moderate Improvement" in all three categories. At least 50% of the students achieved "Marked Improvement" in all three categories. Goal was met in all three categories. See attached document for a summary of results. 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  7. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop”BFA in Theatre Arts Actions Taken (based on analysis of results): Although the goal for glottal attacks was met, faculty decided to continue to focus efforts on eliminating glottal attacks in the students' voices. More emphasis was placed on linking sounds in the warm up, as well as on individual notes to students. 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  8. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop”BM in Performance Outcome: Education for a New Century (Global and Local Issues) : Uses disciplinary concepts to explain how global and local issues are interconnected. Means of Assessment: Course-embedded assessment (MUSC 2248) are given at the beginning and end of the course that examines a set of five competencies including cultural knowledge, performance practices, modes of conceptualization, stylistic features, and music-making behaviors in six geographic regions (Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, West Africa, North America, Andean region, Bali) . The measure reflects the students’ understanding of multicultural idioms and participation in non-Western musical ensembles. The study of alternate principles for organizing musical elements and structures challenges the perspective of a single “dominant culture,” thus offering a broader view for the conceptualization of music. Concomitantly, the assimilation of diverse musical languages (i.e., global) also affords a deeper understanding of Western (local) vocabulary, thereby enhancing the student’s musical practice (local), including instrumental performance, analytical thinking, creative composition and improvisational technique. 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  9. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop”BM in Performance Criteria for Success: Posttest student scores increase from pretest means in 85% of students. 2012-2013 Results: 3 of 3 (100%) students’ scores increased from pretest to posttest. Actions Taken (based on analysis of results): The criterion for success was met for this objective in all categories for Spring 2013. The instructor implemented a more integrative approach to the application of theory and practice in several of the musico-cultural units to better meet the program’s mission of developing professional educators with diverse perspectives of their core and teaching areas. This implementation facilitates the performance component of the assessment (i.e., Sub-Saharan polyrhythmic drumming, Andean Sikuris, and Indonesian Kecak). 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  10. Substantive ChangesBS in Communication Description of Changes: After analyzing data from the past two to three years, School of Communication faculty examined and revised their curriculum, focusing assessment efforts on: Writing Skills Speech Global Initiatives Research Skills This change in the focus of assessment was rooted in their Strategic Planning process: “SOC faculty takes an integrated approach to the processes and practices of human and media communication combining scholarly thinking and research with the competencies addressed in the outcomes.” 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  11. Rubric and Review Process Feedback • ARC meeting as a group and presenting their initial reviews was an excellent practice: • Allowed more experienced reviewers to provide feedback to less experienced reviewers • Provided wider perspective to all reviewers • Allowed for the opportunity to offer the most sophisticated and unified feedback, as it was crafted in some cases by four people rather than one • Increased the inter-rater reliability of the review, while still allowing for independent opinions 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  12. Rubric and Review Process Feedback • Members of the ARC recommended that the rubric be more holistic in nature rather than based on every component of the assessment report. • Format rubric to be based on larger sections of the assessment report: • Plan (Outcome, Means of Assessment, Criteria for Success) • Actions Taken, Results, and Analysis • Actions Planned • Rubric should address other assessment policies, such as: • At least one outcome has multiple means of assessment • Strategic outcome • As all outcomes will be sent to external reviewers, all outcomes within a program should be reviewed. 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

  13. Rubric and Review Process Feedback 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

More Related