The graphs below represent average scores on the various GenEd Objective assessments written by the
faculty during Spring 2010.
GenEd Objectives 1a- 1c are 1-3,
GenEd Objectives 2a-2d are 4-7,
GenEd Objectives 3a-3e are 8-12,
GenEd Objectives 4a-4d are 13-16, and
GenEd Objectives 5a-5c are 17-19
The first graph is a summary of the number of data points (one per student) for each of the GenEd Objectives.
The remaining views are averages over groupings of students. In order, they are: AS & CTE, by ethnicity,
above and below 3.0 GPA, by campus (TAC=Alamosa, TMC=Main Campus), and by gender.
Below these graphs are two histograms of GPA and credit-hours earned by students.
· Clearly we need to work on collecting more data on 1c, 3a-e, 4c-d, and 5b,c
· Also, since we’ve added 1d, we currently have zero data points on that
· Rough validity check: average of scores for students with GPA>3 minus that for students with GPA<3.0 is 0.28 (the 90% confidence interval for this difference is -0.2 to +0.8; the p-value is 0.4). Individually, the
Looks like the resolution of the data is not as good as Spring 2010, particularly for 2a-d, 3e, 4c-d. Most of the same faculty gave the same or similar
assessments, so it is unclear why students with higher GPAs would have lower scores on their GenEd assessments.
CTE generally rates students higher, except on writing (GEG2) and possibly critical thinking (GEG3). Problem solving (GEG4) has much higher
scores for CTE than A&S and the reverse is true for Responsible Citizenship (GEG5) objectives. These issues may be resolved by forming norming
sessions at the beginning of each semester.
The only clear trends are low reading, critical thinking, and problem solving in Minory Non-Hispanic and lower critical thinking scores for Hispanic students.
This should be carefully evaluated.
Female students generally do better than their male counterparts except in reading graphs (1c), identifying perspectives (3b), and identifying the
strengths and weaknesses of logical arguments (3e).
Objectives with the lowest probability of ‘value-added’ by TSJC are indicated in red in the graph above.
It is encouraging to see that students with more credit hours score better in reading (GEG1),
communicating (GEG2), and some aspects of critical thinking (3c-e). Why the other areas
are unchanged is unclear.
The conclusions from these two graphs seem reversed for 1a, 3b, and 5a. Is this due to norming problems? or something deeper?