Academic Year 2003-2004 AISL Report

Lori Holdread Totals for AY04.

Arithmetic (520 tested)
10% below 24, 50% MAT030, 39% above MAT030

ElemAlgebra(554 tested)
70% use arith score, 13% MAT090, 11% MAT106, 5% MAT121

Reading    (540 tested)
0% below 24, 11% REA030, 26% REA060, 28% REA090, 34% college level

English    (501 tested)
0% below 24, 22% ENG030, 18% ENG060, 42% ENG090, 18% ENG121

Sis Spencer, Russ Whiting, Judy Lee, Generose Gabel, Marge Robinson Goal of program Throughout each semester, the division collects writings in portfolios. The aim is to have at least one beginning paper and one final paper preferably using research. At the end of each academic year, the portfolios of graduates are pulled. Two communications faculty members, using the following criteria, evaluate those that have at least two papers: Ideas, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, voice, and conventions. raw data * The sample was too small to draw definite conclusions, but some improvement was noticed in the overall data.
* Weaknesses and strengths occur in every area.
* Students still seem to be weak in conventions (spelling, punctuation, etc.), which should get more attention.
* The division should seek a more uniform way of collecting and evaluating portfolios.
* All teachers of composition should submit both the initial and the research essay in ENG 121 and 122. Developmental English teachers should submit the first and last essay of each course.
* Attempt should be made to collect essays from other disciplines.

Holdread, Two essay question with 4 pt rubric. data

Sem	Num	Avg	StDev	Max	Min
04S	19	4.32	2.11	8	1
04F	6	6.00	1.79	8	3
03S	82	6.04	2.33	8	0

* Average score seems to have dropped from previous semesters; is this a motivational difference?

MacLaren, Philbin, Ulibarri Embedded Math Assessment A general education embedded math assessment was administered. This assessment instrument was a compilation of questions submitted by several math faculty. spreadsheet

Course		#Stu	Avg	Stdv		Max	Min
MAT107	9	39%	20%		6.5	1.0
MAT121*	9	47%	20%		7.3	1.8
MAT121*	7	35%	10%		4.5	1.8
MAT121*	5	45%	26%		7.0	1.5
MAT121	7	39%	26%		7.5	0.5
MAT135	22	37%	21%		8.0	1.0

  * denotes Math Lab sections

The data from 59 students had an average(stdev) of 40(20)% overall, down from last semeter. MAT 110, now 107, scored significantly higher than last semester's 21(8)%; College Algebra (121) scored slightly less than last semester's 48(30)%; Statistics (135) scored slightly less than last semester's 47(15)%.

There is very little correlation (16%, 23%, and 2%) between the EffortScore and the Score. The EffortScore is determined from the number of check-boxes the students indicate 2*[I have seen problems like this before] +1*[I tried to reason it out.] + 0*[I guessed]

Students continue to show evidence of regurgitating knowledge rather than internalizing an understanding of number sense.

Adding the self-check information adds very little information to the assessment.

Will require more writing about math to enhance understanding

The last question does seem to get at understanding of "linear vs exponential." Very few understand this; more work needs to be done.

Philbin

Modified EGEA-S; reading with 7 follow-up questions

Data

The instrument was significantly modified from last semester, including changing from a maximum score of 14 to a maximum score of 10. Average scores increased significantly from 38(16)% to 56(17)% - average(stdev) - but the range did not change.

The test is probably simpler, much more understandable, and students seem to leave fewer questions unanswered than in the past.

The instrument was modified by eliminating all multiple choice questions. It now consists of a single reading with short answer questions which attempt to identify (i) scientific reading ability, (ii) ability to identify variables, (iii) unit conversion or estimation, (iv) measurement terms, (v) scientific logic analysis, (vi) open-ended experimental design.