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.

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image001.png$

· 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

Spring 2010 GEO Scores by GPA cut at 3.0

· 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

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image011.png$

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.

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image003.png$

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.

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image007.png$

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.

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image019.png$

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).

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\imagePre23b.png$ $Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image023b.png$

Objectives with the lowest probability of ‘value-added’ by TSJC are indicated in red in the graph above.

$Description: \\Tsjctjweb01a\aisl$\reports\ay1011\images\image004.png$

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?