Assessment at UNCW

General Education Assessment

2015 Annual Report

Scorers' Feedback before Scoring
  • Q: What sort of factual information might be relevant to the global issues (processes, etc.) that students are asked to discuss? (GC1)

Among the responses, most scorers agreed that assignments required students to research global issues, including the different cultures and perspectives. Assignments requested relevant institutional and cultural facts to be discussed. One scorer felt that the ability to discuss these global issues in depth was difficult for the students to accomplish within a one-page limit.

  • Q: Do the instructions ask students to discuss any interconnectedness between the global systems and processes that are being explored in the assignment? If so, in what way? (GC2)

According to most scorers, the assignments prompted students to discuss connections. Students were asked to discuss, for instance, how exposure to Chinese culture may or may not benefit U.S. students in business school at UNCW. One scorer highlighted the important of discussing European movements in culture and trade movements. One scorer thought that this question was not applicable.

  • Q: To what extent do the assignment instructions ask for multiple perspectives of frames of frames of reference? (GC3)

Scorers all agreed that the assignment asked for at least some different perspectives or frames of reference. One scorer mentioned for one assignment that students were asked to compare and contrast the US and France in general. Others scorers mentioned the requirement to compare students, faculty, and other members of the Cameron School of Business on their ethical differences in a different assignment. Again, cultural differences were addressed, in that students were to research the different cultural perspectives, and students were prompted to report both domestic and global perspectives, while also focusing on one's own group.

  • Q: Do the assignment instructions specify that cultural differences should be addressed? If not, given the instructions, do you feel that there is still potential for students to demonstrate achievement on the GC4 Tolerance of Differences?

One scorer thought that one assignment was somewhat ambiguous for those who were in the group who were asked to argue against creating a program in China. Otherwise, scorers agreed that the instructions did prompt the study of cultural differences. One scorer posited that cultural differences were at the forefront of the assignments, and beyond mentioning cultural differences, students were asked to discuss differences in the nature of tolerance.

  • Q: Do the instructions ask that ethical dimensions be explored? If not, do you think the nature of the assignment might still allow opportunity for students to provide work that can be scored on this dimension? (GC5)

Scorers' responses on this dimension were mixed. One scorer noted that the students were asked to talk about one ethical difference and to discuss how administrations would overcome this. Another scorer mentioned that one assignment did not explicitly cover this dimension, but it seemed likely to come up due to the topic of the assignment. One scorer reported a 'not applicable for this question'.

Scorers' Feedback after Scoring
  • Q: Please explain any issues you encountered in applying any of the dimensions of this rubric to the assignment.

While one scorer felt that there were no issues, some scorers had an issue with the nature of the assignment forcing half of the students to argue against a global issue, They felt that it was difficult for students to take an opposing stance, and that some students seemed to intentionally ignore the systems' connections in order not to weaken their case. One scorer was concerned with knowing the validity of the facts presented by the students, and one scorers felt that because the respective assignment they were scoring only required comparisons between the U.S. and France, it wasn't truly global. Also, one scorer thought that it was difficult to distinguish between 2 and 3 for GC1, and added that a couple of details would make a huge difference in how to interpret the rubric.

  • Q: Were there any specific quality criteria (information in the boxes) that were problematic? If so, explain the problems you encountered.

In GC1 2 and 3, "the" should be eliminated because it implies a set limit to facts. Concerning the framework of the assignment again, one scorer felt that those students asked to oppose the program in China were basically forced into taking a stance that has little to no acceptance of cultural differences, which made GC4, Tolerance of Differences difficult to score. In regards to that dimension, one scorer also suggested changing "acceptance" to awareness for benchmark 1. Finally, one scorer noted that GC5 (Ethical Responsibility) jumps from describing general events/dimensions in benchmark 1 and milestone 2 and then jumps to personal ethics and dimensions of global citizenship in milestone 3 and capstone 4.

  • Q: How could the quality criteria be improved to eliminate the problems?

Scorers specifically suggested editing GC1 by either eliminating "the" from "the main facts" or changing "main" to "important", because they felt that the wording implied that there were specific correct facts. Also, one scorer felt that factual errors may be hard to identify because students are not required to use sources to accompany the facts they provided. One scorer recommended defining what an event is versus a dimension, specifically for GC5, as well as standardizing the verb language being weighted from benchmark 1 to capstone 4.