Download Instructions for Completing the Assessment Findings Report Tables

Instructions for Completing the Assessment Findings Report Tables
Below is an example of a completed findings report table for one PSLO in Process Technology. You will need the
completed Rater Reporting Form for this PSLO/subPSLO to complete this table. Instructions for completing the findings
table are below the table.
Program Name: Process Technology
Assessment Manager: Jim Powell
Date: Current date – may be identified by semester and year (Spring 2012)
PSLO
Assessment
Methods
Success
Criterion
4. Implement
standard safety
procedures as
required in
industry
Direct: 5 safety,
health, and
environment final
exams; 5 rubric
evaluation
observations of
LOTO safety
procedures; 5
rubric evaluation
observations of
process trainer
shutdown
procedures; 5
research papers
on heat stroke
50% will score a
total mean score
of 2 or higher
from two raters,
each of whom
rates using the
following scale:
3 – Accomplished
2 – Competent
1 – Developing
0 – Not Observed
Rater scores are
added, for a
maximum sum of
6.
Indirect:
Department chair
narrative
description of
program goals
and
achievements.
Results of
Assessment
Mean
Median
Mode
4.9
(81.67%)
5.5
6
Standard
Deviation
# of artifacts
(not
disputes)
#/% of 6s
1.55
10/50%
#/% of 5s
4/20%
#/% of 4s
4/20%
#/% of 3s
1/5%
#/% of 2s
1/5%
#/% of 1s
0
#/% of 0s
0
# Disputed
0
Interpretation of
Findings
Use of Results for
Improvement
90% of students met
or exceeded
expectations.
Changes made:
Added a class video
on confined space
entry requirements
common to Process
Industries.
20
Evidence:
Embedded
questions on tests.
Artifact list with
ratings follows.
Instructions for Completing Findings Tables
***Complete one table for each PSLO (and/or sub-PSLO for Commercial Music and AA/AAT only)***
PSLO Column –Type the PSLO number and entire PSLO statement. It’s important to write each PSLO statement out;
users of assessment information should be able to reference quickly what is being assessed without having to flip to
other pages or find the PSLO statements elsewhere.
Assessment Methods – Distinguish between Direct and Indirect evidence. Identify in general categories the types of
artifacts you’ve included under Direct and Indirect headings. You don’t need to list every artifact here; instead, you’ll
attach the corresponding completed Rating Reporting Form, with ratings, to each Findings Table. Be sure to include the
statement, “Artifact list with ratings follows” at the bottom of the column.
Success Criterion – You don’t need to do anything in this column, since the information is already on the form. These
criteria may be changed in the future, but for now they are fine.
Results of Assessment – Use whatever method you choose to determine the mean, median, mode, and standard
deviation. I use the simple calculators at http://easycalculation.com, but you should use whatever works for you.
FYI: Mean is commonly called the average and is defined as the sum of all the given elements divided by the
total number of elements. Median is the middlemost number in a set of numbers; also the number that is
halfway into the set. Mode is the value that occurs most frequently in a set of numbers and is also known as the
modal score. Standard deviation shows how much variation exists from the mean, or average. A low standard
deviation shows that the distribution is close to the mean, and a high standard deviation shows that distribution
is spread over a large range.
Determine the percentage of the mean by dividing the mean by 6, the highest possible score. In the example above, 4.9
÷ 6 = 0.81666, so the percentage is 81.67%.
# of artifacts (not disputes) – Identify the total number of artifacts used to calculate results. Do not include artifacts in
your calculations that remained outlying after a third rater scored them. This will be rare, given the current rating
system.
#/% of 6s, 5s, 4s, etc. – Put the number of 6s, 5s, 4s and so on in the appropriate box. Determine the percentage of 6s
by dividing the number of 6s by the total number of artifacts. Repeat for each score. For example, in the above table,
there were 20 total artifacts and no disputes. Ten artifacts were rated as 6, four as 5, four as 4, one as 3, and one as 2.
To get the percentage of 6s, you divide 10 by 20 (10/20) and get 0.50, or 50%. To get the percentage of 5s, divide 4 (the
number of artifacts scored as 5) by 20 (4/20) and get 0.20, or 20%.
Interpretation of Findings
Determine the percentage of artifacts scoring 40% or higher by adding the total number of artifacts that received a 6, 5,
and 4, and divide that sum by the total number of artifacts. In the example above, 18 artifacts were rated as a 4 or
higher in combined rater scores. Divide 18 by 20 (18/20) to get .90, or 90%.
Add additional details and explanations of findings as needed. If your PSLO scores lower than 40%, you should include a
brief explanation of why.
At this point, use your numerical findings to help you quickly identify likely places that need improvement. Go
back to your artifacts, look at the ratings, and talk to other program faculty to help determine what the
program can do to improve outcomes. The numbers you come up with for the table are only one indicator of
improvement needs; your faculty’s knowledge of program material and outcomes is the best resource for
identifying means of improvement.
Use of Results for Improvement
You will expand upon the Results for Improvement section on the Blue form (modified from the one Dr. Jones gave us)
Changes Made: Identify what changes you are making to improve performance on your PSLO. Remember that you need
3 improvements per program per assessment round. You do not need to identify a change for improvement for each
individual PSLO.
Evidence: Prove that you have made the changes you indicate in some way. You do not need to be elaborate in your
proof – a copy of a new textbook title page or a list of new questions to embed in an exam is sufficient.