Assessment at UNCW

General Education Assessment

2015 Annual Report

Scorers were asked to provide feedback about the assignment's alignment to the rubric and, following scoring, the application of the rubric to the assignment. The question prompts and a synthesis of the scorers' responses are provided below.

Scorers' Feedback before Scoring
  • Q: Does the assignment prompt students to explore issues or themes about human diversity? (DV1)

The common answer among faculty scorers was that the assignment did prompt students to explore the issues or themes about human diversity. While most answers were brief, two scorers mentioned that students were only prompted on this implicitly.

  • Q: Given the assignment instructions, do you expect the student work to examine the perspectives of one or more social groups? Additionally, do you expect to see that the work examines the influence of culture and society on these perspectives? (DV2)

While most of the scorers agreed that the first part of the question was addressed in the assignment prompt, a few of the scorers mentioned that the second part of the question was not addressed in the prompt. Rather, students could possibly imply the second part of the question through thinking about the first part of the question, i.e. "potentially the first part could apply to the second part". One group placed an N/A as a baseline for scoring this assignment, and only scored the work products if they happened to address the rubric criteria.

  • Q: To what extent do the assignment instructions ask for evidence to describe the influence of human diversity on the history and/or present culture of the U.S. (i.e. are students instructed to provide evidence and then critically examine the evidence‚Ķ and to what extent)? (DV3)

All scorers agreed that the assignments did not fit this rubric dimension in that it was not required by the instructors. Scorers concluded that the scoring for this dimension would be labeled not applicable. One group labeled the dimension not application, but scored the work product "if the dimension was evident in the students' papers".

  • Q: Are students prompted to provide evidence in support of or refuting a claim or theory about the interplay of diversity, identity, and experience? Are students asked to acknowledge competing viewpoints? (DV4)

Faculty scorers were mixed in their responses to dimension 4 on the diversity rubric. While some scorers simply answered "yes", other scorers mentioned that nothing in the assignment was explicit about diversity. One scorer mentioned that the assignment asked the students to "apply gender criticism" and "offer specific details and evidence". However, one scorer posited that the prompt would not encourage students to explore competing viewpoints.

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

There were multiple issues encountered in applying the dimensions to the assignments. For instance, one scorer mentioned that the prompt did not explicitly ask the student to write about diversity. Also, the formatting of the assignment was in a confusing format, such that the work products were somewhat difficult to interpret. In regards to the requirements, students were, in one assignment, given two different options which had two different expectations. Also, one faculty scorer noted that the lack of a length requirement yielded multiple work products that provided the bare minimum.

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

Multiple scorers commented that DV3 was not clearly addressed in the assignment and could therefore not be truly assessed. One scorer mentioned that no theoretical framework suggested or required made it hard to assess DV4.

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

While many scorers chose not to answer this question, one group suggested making the criteria a checklist because the descriptions are too "vague and wordy".
Scorers were asked to describe any scoring assumptions they made when applying the diversity rubric:
The implicit nature of the course would suggest that a discussion of gender issues should be present in the work products. Because the prompt asked specifically for personal reflections, one group allowed students to back up their own claims in satisfying DV4, making it unnecessary to bring in others' theories. Again, multiple scorers mentioned that DV3 was not supported by the assignment.