CORE CURRICULUM A S S E S S M E N T P L A N · SPAN 2311 SPAN 2326 Creative Arts (050) 3 SCH i These courses focus on the appreciation and analysis of creative artifacts and works

CORE CURRICULUM

A S S E S S M E N T P L A N

Revised August 16, 2018

Texas A&M University – Texarkana | Core Curriculum Assessment Plan | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview 3

Purpose and Values 3

The New Texas Higher Education Core Curriculum 4

Core Objectives and Definitions 4

Foundation Component Areas, Descriptions, and Associated Courses 5

Proposal of Courses for Inclusion in the Core Curriculum 6

Alignment of Core Courses with Core Objectives 6

Alignment of Foundation Component Areas with Core Objectives Assessment

Requirements 7

Writing Student Learning Outcomes 8

Sample Alignment of Assignment to Course Objectives 9

Sample Quality Grading Schedule 10

Core Curriculum Faculty 11-12

Core Curriculum Assessment Process 13-14

Core Curriculum Assessment Cycles and Schedule 15

Summary of Methodology, Benchmarks, and Data Collection 15-21

Assessment Measures 22

Rubrics (Course-Embedded Assessment) 22-23

Program Outcomes Assessment 24

Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+) 25

Graduating Student Survey (GSS) 26

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 27-30

Culture, Diversity, & Globalization Survey 31

First-Year Experience (FYE) Survey 32

Use of Core Curriculum Assessment Results 33

Concluding Principles 34-35

References 36


O V E R V I E W

Texas statute (TEC §61.821-61.831) requires that each public institution of higher education establish and incorporate a 42 semester credit hour (SCH) general education (Core Curriculum) within the course requirements for all undergraduate degree programs. The Core Curriculum is defined by the State of Texas as “the curriculum in the liberal arts, humanities, sciences, and political, social, and cultural history that all undergraduates of an institution of higher education are required to complete before receiving an academic undergraduate degree. Core Curriculum provisions apply to institutions of higher education that offer academic undergraduate degree programs.” (TAC 12 §4.23) The nine Foundational Component Areas (FCA) and six Core Objectives are provided on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) website.

Assessment of the Core Curriculum is mandated by the State of Texas. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) requires that each institution evaluate the Core Curriculum every ten years and submit a report to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and The Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) Board of Regents (BOR) that includes: (1) a description of the assessment process for each of the six Core Objectives; (2) an explanation of measures, methodology, frequency and the timeline of assessment activities; (3) the criteria and/or targets used to benchmark the attainment of the six Core Objectives; (4) the results of the assessment, including evidence of the level of attainment targeted and achieved for each of the six Core Objectives; (5) an analysis of the results, including an interpretation of assessment information; and (6) any actions planned, including how the results and analysis of the assessment process will be used to improve student learning and achievement. ” (TAC 19 §4.30 ).”

PURPOSE AND VALUES

The purpose of Core Curriculum assessment is for institutions to discover, document and seek to improve student attainment of the six Core Objectives of the Core Curriculum. As such, the values for assessing the Core Objectives are:

1. The Core Objectives will form the foundation of the institution's Core Curriculum. 2. Faculty participation is integral throughout the assessment cycle. 3. Institutions use multiple measures—both within and between measurement

“types”—for effective assessment. 4. Local data and external benchmark information is used to inform student

performance standards. 5. Institutions use assessment of the Core Objectives to improve student learning. 6. Assessment methodology and practice continuously evolves.


THE NEW TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION CORE CURRICULUM

The THECB approved a major revision of the Texas Core Curriculum on October 27, 2011, which went into effect in fall 2014 This revision included a “42 semester credit hour Core Curriculum for all undergraduate students in Texas,” “. . . a statement of purpose, six Core Objectives, and common component areas” (THECB, n.d., Texas Core Curriculum). The statement of purpose says, “Through the Texas Core Curriculum, students will gain a foundation of knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, develop principles of personal and social responsibility for living in a diverse world, and advance intellectual and practical skills that are essential for all learning.”

CORE OBJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS

The Core Objectives established by the THECB (n.d., Elements of the Core Curriculum) are:

Core Objective

Definition

Critical Thinking Skills

…to include creative thinking, innovation, inquiry, and analysis, evaluation and synthesis of information.

Communication Skills

…to include effective development, interpretation and expression of ideas through written, oral and visual communication.

Teamwork …to include the ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal.

Empirical & Quantitative Skills

…to include the manipulation and analysis of numerical data or observable facts resulting in informed conclusions.

Social Responsibility

…to include intercultural competence, knowledge of civic responsibility, and the ability to engage effectively in regional, national, and global communities.

Personal Responsibility

…to include the ability to connect choices, actions and consequences to ethical decision-making.

The THECB also established nine Foundation Component Areas (FCAs; THECB, n.d., Elements of the Texas Core Curriculum. These FCAs, their associated FCA codes, the semester credit hours students are required to complete, a description for each FCA, and a list of the Core Curriculum courses nested within each FCA can be seen on pg. 5.


FOUNDATION COMPONENT AREAS, DESCRIPTIONS, AND ASSOCIATED COURSES

FCA (Code) Semester

Credit Hours Required

Description

Courses

Communication

(010) 6 SCH

These courses focus on developing ideas and expressing them clearly, considering the effect of the message, fostering understanding, & building the skills needed to communicate persuasively. Courses involve the command of oral, aural, written, & visual literacy skills that enable people to exchange messages appropriate to the subject, occasion, & audience.

COMM 1307 ENGL 1301 SPCH 1315

Mathematics (020) 3 SCH

These courses focus on quantitative literacy in logic, patterns, and relationships, and the understanding of key mathematical concepts and the application of appropriate quantitative tools to everyday experience.

MATH 1314 MATH 1324 MATH 1332

MATH 1342 MATH 2412 MATH 2413

Life and Physical

Sciences (030) 6 SCH

These courses focus on describing, explaining, and predicting natural phenomena using the scientific method. Courses involve the understanding of interactions among natural phenomena and the implications of scientific principles on the physical world and on human experiences.

BIOL 1306/1106 BIOL 1307/1107 BIOL 1308/1108 BIOL 1309/1109 BIOL 1414 BIOL 1415 BIOL 2401 BIOL 2402 BIOL 2406

CHEM 1311/1111 CHEM 1312/1112 GEOL 1403 PHYS 1301/1101 PHYS 1302/1102 PHYS 1415 PHYS 1417 PHYS 2325/2125 PHYS 2326/2126

Language, Philosophy, & Culture (040)

3 SCH

These courses focus on how ideas, values, beliefs, and other aspects of culture express and affect human experience. Courses involve the exploration of ideas that foster aesthetic and intellectual creation in order to understand the human condition across cultures.

MCOM 2370 HISP 2375 HIST 2321 HIST 2322

HUMA 1301 PHIL 1301 PHIL 1350 SPAN 2311 SPAN 2326

Creative Arts (050) 3 SCH

These courses focus on the appreciation and analysis of creative artifacts and works of the human imagination. Courses involve the synthesis and interpretation of artistic expression and enable critical, creative, and innovative communication about works of art.

ARTS 1301 ARTS 1304 DRAM 1310 ENGL 2321

ENGL 2326

ENGL 2331 MUSI 1306

American

History (060) 6 SCH

These courses focus on the consideration of past events and ideas relative to the United States, with the option of including Texas History for a portion of this component area. Courses involve the interaction among individuals, communities, states, the nation, and the world, considering how these interactions have contributed to the development of the United States and its global role.

HIST 1301

HIST 1302

Govt. & Poli. Sci.

(070) 3 SCH

These courses focus on consideration of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states, with special emphasis on that of Texas. Courses involve the analysis of governmental institutions, political behavior, civic engagement, and their political and philosophical foundations.

GOVT 2301 GOVT 2302

Social & Beh.

Sci. (080) 3 SCH

These courses focus on the application of empirical and scientific methods that contribute to the understanding of what makes us human. Courses involve the exploration of behavior and interactions among individuals, groups, institutions, and events, examining their impact on the individual, society, and culture.

BUSI 1301

CJ 1301

ECON 2301

ECON 2302

PSYC 2301 SOCI 1301

Component Area Option

(090) 6 SCH

A minimum of 3 SCH must meet the definition and corresponding Core Objectives specified in one of the foundational component areas. As an option for up to 3 semester credit hours of the Component Area Option, an institution may select course(s) that: (1) meet(s) the definition specified for one or more of the foundational component areas; and (2) Include(s) a minimum of three Core Objectives, including Critical Thinking Skills, Communication Skills, and one other Core Objective of the institution's choice.

ENGL 1302 ENGL 2340

IS 1100 ENGL 1101 ENGL 1111

HIST 1111 MCOM 1111 MCOM 1112 MCOM 1113 PHIL 1111


PROPOSAL OF COURSES FOR INCLUSION IN THE CORE CURRICULUM

Faculty in each department proposing a course for inclusion in the Core will identify specific course assignments (e.g., papers, projects, speeches, presentations, essays) used to measure student mastery of each required or optionally selected Core Objective for the Foundational Component Area in which the course is to be included. An assignment may be used to measure multiple Core Objectives, and, when possible, existing assignments should be used. Faculty should make certain that the identified assignments provide students the opportunity to clearly demonstrate levels of mastery of the associated Core Objective(s). A copy of the instructions, guidelines, rubrics/scoring guidelines, key and all other materials associated with the identified assignments must be submitted.

ALIGNMENT OF CORE COURSES WITH CORE OBJECTIVES

As can be seen previously on pg. 5, course offerings within the Core Curriculum are nested within one of nine Foundation Component Areas (FCAs). The THECB has established a set of Core Objective assessment requirements associated with each of the Foundation Component Areas. Each Foundation Component Area has a set of Core Objective assessment requirements that may slightly differ from requirements associated with other Foundation Component Areas. If a Foundation Component Area is associated with a Core Objective assessment

requirement, then all courses nested within that Foundation Component Area must

participate in the assessment of that Core Objective. Faculty teaching those courses cannot

petition to have that requirement removed for that course; the course can only remain as

part of the Core Curriculum (including all Core Objective assessment requirements) or it

must be removed from the Core Curriculum. However, faculty teaching Core courses have

the option to participate in additional assessment of Core Objectives that are not required

for a course. This scenario may emerge, for example, through the addition or modification

of student learning outcomes (SLOs) for a Core course. Faculty who wish to do this must

submit copies of the course SLO, the compatible Core Objective, and a description of (and

copies of materials for) assignments that will be used to assess the new Core Objective(s)

to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.

The list of Core Objective assessment requirements (and options) can be seen on pg. 7.

Resources and examples for writing SLOs, linking assignments to course objectives, and

creating a quality grading schedule can be seen on pp. 8-10.

Texas A&M – Texarkana | Core Curriculum manual | 7

ALIGNMENT OF FOUNDATION COMPONENT AREAS WITH CORE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

Foundation Component Area

(FCA)

Critical Thinking

Skills



Teamwork Social Responsibility


Communication

Required Required Optional Required Optional Required

Mathematics

Required Required Required Optional Optional Optional

Life and Physical Sciences

Required Required Required Required Optional Optional

Language, Philosophy, &

Culture

Required Required Optional Optional Required Required

Creative Arts

Required Required Optional Required Required Optional

American History


Govt. & Poli. Sci.


Social & Beh. Sci.

Required Required Required Optional Required Optional

Component Area Option

Required Required Optional Required for: ENGL 1302, ENGL

2340, IS 1100, MCOMM 1110, MCOMM 1120, and MCOMM 1130.

Required for: ENGL 1111 and HIST

1111.

Required for: PHIL 1111.

Required = Core Objective must be assessed in courses nested within the FCA O = Core Objective assessment is optional for courses nested within the FCA

Source: THECB (n.d., Quick Reference for Core Curriculum 2014)


WRITING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Student learning outcomes (SLOs) are statements that specify what learners will know or do as a result of a learning activity expressed as knowledge, skills, or attitudes. “By the end of the course……”

Guiding Questions

Potential Choices Example Answers

1. How many students?

70%, 85%, 100% (all)... (All) students

↓ 2. What will

they do? Analyze, Compare/Contrast, Distinguish, Evaluate, Perform, Solve…

will analyze

↓ 3. Within the

context of what?

The effects of the American Civil War on society The similarities and differences of viruses An algebraic equation with two unknowns

the effects of the American Civil War on society,

↓

4. What is the measure and student performance standard?

Earning 5 points out of 7 on… Achieving a rubric score of 4 on a 6-point rubric used to evaluate… Achieving 70% accuracy on…

achieving a rubric score of 4

on a 6-point rubric used to

evaluate

↓

5. What activity is being evaluated?

A written examination An essay An oral presentation

an essay.

Using the above exercise, it is important to note that answers to each component are necessary for different things. Component 1 is added at the course/program evaluation level for the purpose of assessing entire class mastery of a specific student learning outcome. Components 2-3 comprise the required elements of SLOs for individual students and should be posted in the syllabus. Components 4 and 5 are incorporated within the quality grading schedule/scale that the instructor uses to determine student mastery, but is not required in the syllabus. Thus, the most basic SLO informed by the guiding questions above would be stated in the syllabus as, “Students will analyze the effects of the American Civil War on society.”


SAMPLE ALIGNMENT OF ASSIGNMENT TO COURSE OBJECTIVE(S)

Course (Prefix, Number, Title): HIST 1301 American History

Objectives Specific Skills,

Values, Attributes

Experiences

Assignments Standards (As

Measured By…) Outcomes &

Criteria What should students be able to do? (SLO)

What will the students need to know to be successful?

What experiences will lead them to develop these abilities? (What will the instructor do or provide?)

Through what specific activities will students gain these experiences?

How well and at what student performance level should they be able to demonstrate the ability?

How will you/ students know that they can actually do it at that level?

Students will analyze the effects of the American Civil War on society.

-Identify the components (North/South) of the American Civil War. -Identify the causes of the American Civil War. -Compare and contrast the differing views of the American Civil War. -Research primary and secondary sources to support the effects. -Use APA style

-Read chapters 3-6 in text -Listen to lecture -Watch video -Group (in-class) discussion, debate

-Write a critical essay

-Earn score of at least 70%

-Evaluated with criteria on the grammar/ writing rubric included in syllabus -Rubric to include criteria of grammar, content, APA use, etc.


SAMPLE QUALITY GRADING SCHEDULE

ENGL 1301 Composition I

General scoring for evaluation of Papers I-VI

In addition to the requirements listed below, Papers IV and V must meet the additional requirements of (1) appropriate

and correct use of sources, (2) adequate number of sources, and (3) MLA citation and documentation.

“A” papers: 90-100% of points awarded

The essay: 1. Contains a clear thesis that is maintained and presented in an organized manner and supported throughout

the paper 2. Contains an effective introduction that attracts the interest of the reader, followed by a logical development of

topic, and concluded with an appropriate closing

3. Maintains coherence with the use of transitional words, phrases and sentences to show the relationships of

ideas

4. Contains unified paragraphs 5. Offers specifics and critical analysis, and evaluates the significance of supporting details or examples 6. Reveals a writing style that adheres to the conventions of edited American

English 7. Reveals a writing style that evinces the writer‟s use of stylistic techniques that enhance the paper‟s

effectiveness 8. Shows creative or original approach toward topic

“B” papers: 80-89% of points awarded

The essay:

Contains 1-6 as listed above

“C” papers: 70-79% of points awarded (REQUIRED FOR DEMONSTRATION OF MASTERY)

The essay: Contains 1-4 as listed above. The paper may reveal minor errors in adhering to the conventions of edited

American English, but these problems are not so severe that they inhibit the writer‟s ability to be effective or to achieve clarity.

“D” papers: 60-69% of points awarded

The essay: 1. Contains a thesis, but the thesis lacks acceptable clarity and/or development. 2. Lacks effective organization and appropriate use of supporting details. 3. Lacks clear organization 4. Reveals some major problems in composition at the sentence level; i.e. fragments, comma splices, run-on

sentences 5. Lacks acceptable adherence to the conventions of edited American English

“F” papers: 59% or less of points awarded

The essay 1. Lacks a discernable thesis

2. Reveals problems in coherence and clarity

3. Lacks a sense of organization and contains little or no supporting details

4. Contains major problems at the sentence level: i.e. fragments, comma splices, run-on sentences

5. Lacks acceptable adherence to the conventions of edited American English


CORE CURRICULUM FACULTY

For well-established pedagogical reasons, and more importantly for ensuring the Academe perseveres, Core Curriculum courses should more often than not have Master Core Faculty as the professor. CRITERIA

All faculty teaching in the Core must have at a minimum 18 SCH in a directly related

discipline to the course taught. Exceptions to this rule can only be of an exigent nature.

Texas A&M University-Texarkana has resolved itself upon three grades of Master Core

Faculty: Core Competent, Core Qualified, and Core Expert. Criteria per grade are illustrated

blow.

Core Competent Core Qualified Core Expert

1. Faculty has MA or MS in the field.

2. Core courses are no less than ½ of the regularly assigned teaching load.

3. 75% or greater of Core courses taught within any academic year are face-to-face.

4. Student evaluations for all prior Core courses are no less than the median for all faculty teaching in the Core.

5. Overall grade distributions in the Core courses taught are normally distributed with a mean about 75% (+/-3%), and a standard deviation of about 8 (+/- 2).

1. Faculty possesses all Core

Competent requirements, plus:

2. Faculty has Terminal Degree in the field.

3. Faculty has taught at least two years (continuous) in the Core.

4. Faculty has been peer observed and evaluated by other Master Core Faculty.

5. Faculty has demonstrated regular and significant interaction of a scholarly or academic nature with those students currently completing the Core.

6. Faculty has served at least one cycle as an Assessor, Committee Member, or other acceptable role related to the development and implementation of the Core Curriculum.

1. Faculty possesses all Core

Qualified requirements, plus:

2. Faculty has published at least one peer-reviewed academic article on pedagogy in the Core.

3. Faculty has taught at least four years in the Core.

4. Faculty has served at least two cycles/two roles in the development and implementation of the Core.

5. Student evaluations for Core courses taught reflect no large or disparate shifts over no less than three years.


CANDIDACY

Faculty may self-nominate. Non-Tenured/Tenure track faculty are not eligible, nor faculty

serving in administrative or quasi-administrative roles.

DETERMINATION OF QUALIFICATIONS

Faculty are the experts in all matters at any true university. No non-germane subjective

criteria or critique will be entertained, considered, or discussed. The Chair of the A3C

reserves final authority in the matter of contentious disputes over credentials and

qualification.

STIPEND

Master Core Faculty will be honored with stipends appropriate to their level, as determined

by the VPAA, but for no less than one percent of the lowest salaried tenure track faculty per

annum.

RECOGNITON

It is incumbent upon the President and the VPAA to ensure all Master Core Faculty are duly

and regularly praised and promoted by the university in as public a manner as possible.

RELIEF

TAMU-T recognizes the intensity and laboriousness of teaching Core courses on a regular

basis. Thus, faculty who have met the Master Core Faculty criteria will be granted without

question a one-course reduction in a semester no less than once every four years if that

faculty meets the Core Competent grade award, once every three years at the Core

Qualified grade, and once every two years at the Core Expert grade.

RESTRICTIONS

Core Competent, Core Qualified, and Core Expert faculty are not restricted to the above, and

are assumed to be eligible by default for any award recognition conferred by the university

or the TAMU system.


CORE CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Two Core Objectives are assessed annually, within the context of a three-year cycle that rotates the focus of assessment each year. The annual assessment cycle incorporates five steps, as depicted below.

Each phase of the assessment cycle is informed by the step that precedes it and serves to inform immediately subsequent steps. The Question Phase, Plan Phase, and Collect Phase are completed within a given academic year, whereas the Study Phase and the Intervene Phase are completed early in the next academic year. The specific actions that are associated with each phase are described in more detail on pg. 14.

1. Question

2. Plan

3. Collect

4. Study

5. Intervene


STEP ONE: QUESTION The assessment cycle begins with the Question Phase, in which two Core Objectives scheduled for assessment in a given year guide the focus of the research questions examined during the Core Curriculum assessment process. STEP TWO: PLAN The two Core Objective research questions inform the methodology designed during the Plan Phase. During this phase, faculty write and/or identify SLOs and align them with the Core Objectives. Faculty feedback, concerns, and suggestions expressed from within academic program discussions, participation in the Core Curriculum Faculty Review Panel, and Academic Assessment Committee meetings will be synthesized and used to inform changes made to Core Curriculum assessment methodology. This methodology includes identification of direct assessments (which directly assess student mastery of Core Objectives) and indirect assessments (which assess student perceptions of their mastery of Core Objectives). STEP THREE: COLLECT The methodology crafted during the Plan Phase is subsequently implemented during the Collect Phase. Faculty will teach Core Curriculum courses, implement any intervention strategies that they identified and committed themselves to during previous assessment cycles, and will submit student artifacts and other requested pieces of assessment information in a timely manner. Faculty can access the schedule of assessment activities and deadlines by referencing the Academic Assessment Calendar posted on the Assessment & Measurement-Procedures webpage. Faculty can also reference resources provided within the Core Curriculum Assessment Toolboxes by accessing the Assessment & Measurement-Resources webpage. STEP FOUR: STUDY In the Study Phase, findings are analyzed, interpreted, shared, and discussed. Abbreviated and full copies of the Core Curriculum Assessment Report will be provided to faculty during the Fall semester each year. Copies of these reports are hosted on the Assessment & Measurement-Data Sources webpage, addition to copies of results from various individual sources of assessment information. STEP FIVE: INTERVENE In the Intervene Phase, findings are used to inform specific intervention strategies that faculty will implement during the next academic year and beyond. Faculty will submit requested information (at the program level) on what intervening actions they will take in response to assessment findings. This information will be included in the Core Curriculum Assessment Addendum Report, which will be posted on the Assessment & Measurement-Data Sources webpage.

http://tamut.edu/About/Administration/Institutional-Data-Management/Assessment-and-Measurement-Procedures.html

http://tamut.edu/About/Administration/Institutional-Data-Management/Assessment-and-Measurement-Resources.html

http://tamut.edu/About/Administration/Institutional-Data-Management/Assessment-and-Measurement-Data-Sources.html




CORE CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT CYCLES AND SCHEDULE

As mentioned on pg. 13, two Core Objectives will be assessed during the academic year each year. In order to streamline assessment and reduce the general assessment workload of faculty, the assessment schedule for the Core Objectives has been scheduled to align well with the predetermined assessment schedule for compatible Texas A&M University System Objectives. The list of Core Objectives, their definitions, their associated assessment cycle, and the upcoming academic years for those assessment cycles can be seen below.

Core Objective

Definition

Cycle

Upcoming Assessment

Cycles Critical Thinking Skills

…to include creative thinking, innovation, inquiry, and analysis, evaluation and synthesis of information.

A

2018-2019 2021-2022


…to include effective development, interpretation and expression of ideas through written, oral and visual communication.

Teamwork …to include the ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal.

B

2019-2020 2022-2023


…to include the manipulation and analysis of numerical data or observable facts resulting in informed conclusions.


…to include intercultural competence, knowledge of civic responsibility, and the ability to engage effectively in regional, national, and global communities.

C

2017-2018 2020-2021


…to include the ability to connect choices, actions and consequences to ethical decision-making.

SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY, BENCHMARKS, AND DATA COLLECTION

Sources of direct measures and indirect measures are selected (and, when needed, revised and/or replaced) to suit the varying measurement needs of the six Core Objectives. Summaries of the methodology, student performance standards, and data collection plans per Core Objective can be seen on pp. 16-21. Additional details on each measure can be seen on pp. 22-30.


CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS (CYCLE A)

Measure Direct / Indirect

Student Performance Standard(s) Administration Frequency

Critical Thinking Rubric (course embedded assessment)

D

Acceptable Target: Students will achieve an average score of 2.0 overall. Ideal Target: Students will achieve an average score of 2.5 overall.

Cycle A

Program outcomes assessment

D

Acceptable Target: Students will meet or exceed the acceptable student performance standard set by each academic program. Ideal Target: Students will meet or exceed the ideal student performance standard set by each academic program.

Cycle A

Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus (CLA+)

D

Students will meet (Acceptable) or exceed (Ideal) national norms on Critical Reading & Evaluation.

Mean Score for Freshmen Across Institutions: 498 Mean Score for Seniors Across Institutions: 541

Fall semester (freshmen), Spring semester (seniors)

Graduating Student Survey (GSS)

I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their critical thinking skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their critical thinking skills on each item.

Every semester (seniors)

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their critical thinking skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their critical thinking skills on each item.

Every Spring semester (freshmen, seniors)


COMMUNICATION SKILLS (CYCLE A)


Student Performance Standard(s) Timeline

Written, Oral, and Visual Communication Rubrics (course embedded assessment)

D


Cycle A


D


Cycle A


D

Students will meet (Acceptable) or exceed (Ideal) national norms on Critique an Argument




I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their communication skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their communication skills on each item.



I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their communication skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their communication skills on each item.



TEAMWORK (CYCLE B) Measure Direct /

Indirect Student Performance Standard(s) Timeline

Teamwork Rubric (course embedded assessment)

D


Cycle B


D


Cycle B


I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their teamwork skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their teamwork skills on each item.



I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their teamwork skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their teamwork skills on each item.



EMPIRICAL & QUANTITATIVE SKILLS (CYCLE B)


Student Performance Standard(s) Timeline

Empirical & Quantitative Skills Rubric (course embedded assessment)

D


Cycle B


D


Cycle B


D

Students will meet (Acceptable) or exceed (Ideal) national norms on Scientific & Quantitative Reasoning.




I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their empirical and quantitative skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their empirical and quantitative skills on each item.



I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their empirical and quantitative skills on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their empirical and quantitative skills on each item.



PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (CYCLE C) Measure Direct /


Personal Responsibility Rubric (course embedded assessment)

D


Cycle C


D


Cycle C


I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item.



I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item.



SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CYCLE C) Measure Direct /


Social Responsibility Rubric (course embedded assessment)

D


Cycle C


D


Cycle C

First-Year Experience (FYE) Survey

I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will agree or strongly agree on questions aligned with social responsibility. Ideal Target: 70% of students or more will agree or strongly agree on questions aligned with social responsibility.

Administered every fall semester

Culture, Diversity, & Globalization Survey

I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will agree or strongly agree on questions aligned with social responsibility. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will agree or strongly agree on questions aligned with social responsibility.



I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “much” or “a lot” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item.



I

Acceptable Target: 70% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item. Ideal Target: 85% of students or more will indicate that TAMUT contributed either “quite a bit” or “very much” to their personal responsibility competencies on each item.



ASSESSMENT MEASURES

RUBRICS (COURSE-EMBEDDED ASSESSMENTS) Identification and Selection of Student Artifacts from Core Courses Faculty teaching courses listed in the Core Curriculum will identify collections of student artifacts that they will submit for Core Curriculum assessment purposes. In many cases, existing assignments can be used to assess student performance on Core Objectives. Faculty should begin their work on identifying assignments to be used for Core assessment by reviewing existing assignments to determine if they can be used for this purpose. In other cases, new assignments will need to be developed to assess student performance on the Core Objectives; such assignments will need to be developed as an integral part of the pedagogical requirements for compliance with the new Core. When a course is scheduled to be assessed on two Core Objectives in a given year—and if the “fit” between the student artifacts and both scheduled Core Objectives is reasonable—the same collection of student artifacts may be submitted for dual-assessment purposes. Otherwise, a collection of student artifacts may be assessed on one Core Objective while a separate collection of student artifacts is assessed on the second Core Objective. Collection of Student Artifacts For each course participating in Core Curriculum assessment, the total number of sections offered in a specific academic term is identified. All sections will participate in the assessment process. All enrolled students in the selected sections are asked to sign a consent form permitting the university to confidentially review their work for purposes of Core assessment. Faculty members in the selected sections must remove student names, student CWIDs, the course name, and other identifiers from the student artifacts prior to submission. Faculty will be provided with instruction for uploading assignments and will provide those instructions to their students as a part of the instructions/guidelines for the assignment(s). Faculty must submit copies of all student artifacts, the assignment instructions, and other requested pieces of information to the Office of Institutional Data Management. Sampling of Student Artifacts To minimize the assessment burden on faculty while maintaining the methodological soundness of student artifact assessment, a representative sample of student work will be selected for the Core Curriculum Assessment Faculty Review Panels. To maximize the representatives of the sample, two questions must be answered:

First, how many copies of student work must be sampled to ensure that enough student work has been adequately represented in the subset collection? This question can be answered by specifying a level of confidence desired in the result (i.e., 95%), in relation to a population of a specified size (i.e., expected enrollment in Core courses), with a specified degree of sampling error (i.e., 5%), and given a


specified level of probably for a particular student outcome (i.e., 50% of students). Thus, the total sample of expected student artifact submission copies will be calculated at the university level, Foundation Component Area (FCA) level, and course level. These totals will be used to determine how many student artifacts should be sampled to compose the subset of student artifacts.

NOTE: Although faculty teaching Core courses are expected to submit student artifacts from all sections of those courses, sometimes the expected total of student artifacts received will be greater than the total number of student artifacts that are actually received. Thus, slight flexibility in the subset total must be allowed; this total should be referenced as a guide rather than a standard. Nonetheless, the calculated subset total will be increased by an additional 15% to help buffer against the loss of missing student artifacts.

Second, how are the student characteristics of the complete student artifact pool preserved in the subset sample? First, a weighted sampling approach will occur in which more student artifacts will be sampled from Foundation Component Areas that have a large presence in the Core Curriculum (i.e., Life and Physical Sciences, Social and Behavioral Sciences) in comparison to other Foundation Component Areas (i.e., American History, Government & Political Science). Second, student artifacts will be randomly selected for inclusion in the subset sample. Random selection ensures that variations in student knowledge, skills, and abilities will have an equal chance for inclusion in the Core Curriculum Faculty Review Panels, thus enhancing the generalizability of assessment findings from the subset sample to the larger population.

Core Curriculum Assessment Review Panels In the spring of each academic year, teams of 6-10 faculty will serve on Core Curriculum Assessment Faculty Review Panels. Faculty who teach courses within the Core Curriculum must participate in the review panels. Each faculty review panel will focus on assessment of one Core Objective using the rubrics chosen and revised by faculty for that purpose. Copies of the rubrics used to assess student artifacts on Core Objectives can be found within each Core Curriculum Assessment Toolbox (named after each Core Objective) on the Assessment & Measurement-Resources webpage. Assignments will be reviewed for alignment to the Core Objectives and the rubric used to assess those Core Objectives. Programs will be notified if, upon review, the assignments do not effectively align with assessment objectives. At such an occasion, the department will be asked for modifications, revisions, or submissions of new assignments. Reviews, approvals, and notifications to departments should be complete as per the VPAA’s schedule. The A3C must review assignments and their acceptable alignment to objectives prior to the delivery of any course in the Core.



PROGRAM OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Academic program assessment includes the department mission statement, program objectives, the program’s SLOs, curriculum mapping, the assessment plan for the given academic year, assessment findings, dissemination of findings, program improvements, and status reports for those program improvements. When academic program faculty submit their SLOs, they may align these SLOs with the Core Objectives (if applicable). This information complements information obtained via evaluation of student artifacts from Core courses because academic program assessments include information from upper-level courses. Faculty within academic programs shape the SLOs, choose what direct and indirect measures to use, set their own student performance standards for acceptable performance and ideal performance, and collect and report assessment results. Academic program coordinators submit the results of program assessments annually via the Taskstream submission portal (http://www.taskstram.com).

Additional information on program outcomes assessment can be found in the Academic Assessment Calendar and in the Institutional Effectiveness Plan, which are both hosted on the Assessment & Measurement-Procedures webpage. Additional resources—including the academic program outcomes assessment worksheet, the Taskstream user guide, and Taskstream tutorial videos—can be found on the Assessment & Measurement-Resources webpage.

http://www.taskstram.com/

http://tamut.edu/About/Administration/Institutional-Data-Management/Assessment-and-Measurement-Procedures.html



COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CLA+) The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+) is a standardized assessment tool that measures several competencies related to some of the Core Objectives. Freshmen are invited to voluntarily participate in the CLA+ each Fall semester, and graduating seniors are invited to voluntarily participate in the CLA+ each Spring semester. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee makes revisions to the student performance standards as needed. The table below features each of the CLA+ subsections.

Name of CLA+ Subsection Description of CLA+ Subsection

Analysis and Problem-

Solving, Writing

Effectiveness, and Writing

Mechanics*

Analyzing and understanding data in tables and figures

Recognizing when info is or is not relevant

Evaluating document credibility

Distinguishing rational arguments from emotional ones

Determining differences between facts vs. opinions

Identifying questionable assumptions

Dealing with inadequate, ambiguous, or conflicting information

Spotting deception, bias, and logical flaws in arguments

Weighing different types of evidence

Identifying additional info that would help resolve issues

Organizing/synthesizing info from multiple sources

Marshaling evidence from different sources in a written response

Critiquing-An-Argument

Evaluating info reliability

Detecting logical flaws and questionable assumptions

Addressing information that could strengthen or weaken the argument

Evaluating alternative conclusions

Critical Reading &

Evaluation

Supporting/refuting a position

Analyzing logic

Identifying assumptions in arguments

Evaluating reliability of information

Identifying information that is conflicting or consistent

Making justifiable inferences

Scientific & Quantitative

Reasoning

Making inferences/hypothesis based on results

Evaluating information reliability

Identifying whether quantitative information conflicts or is consistent

with other information

Supporting/refuting positions

Detecting questionable assumptions

Drawing conclusions or deciding on a course of action to solve a

problem

Evaluating alternative conclusions

Recognizing when additional research is needed

*The descriptions for these subsections have been lumped together in materials provided by the CLA+ rather than described separately.


GRADUATING STUDENT SURVEY (GSS) The GSS is completed by graduating seniors each semester. The GSS contains items related to the Core Objectives. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee makes revisions to the survey items and to the student performance standards as needed.

The GSS survey items used to assess the Core Curriculum are listed below.

To what extent did your experiences across the general education curriculum at Texas A&M University-Texarkana contribute to your development in the following areas?

Not at all

A little

Some Much A Lot

Critical Thinking Skills (such as creative thinking, innovation, and the analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information)?

0

1

2

3

4

Communication Skills (such as effective development, interpretation, and expression of ideas through written, oral, and visual communication)?

0

1

2

3

4

Empirical & Quantitative Skills (such as manipulation and analysis of numerical data or observable facts resulting in informed conclusions)?

0

1

2

3

4

Teamwork (such as considering different points of view and working effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal)?

0

1

2

3

4

Personal Responsibility (such as connecting personal choices, action, and consequences to ethical decision-making)?

0

1

2

3

4

Social Responsibility (such as intercultural competence, knowledge of civic responsibility, and the ability to engage effectively in regional, national, and global communities)?

0

1

2

3

4


NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) First-year students and seniors complete the NSSE each Spring semester. The NSSE

contains items related to the Core Objectives. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

selects NSSE item and makes revisions to student performance standards as needed.

The NSSE survey items used to assess the Core Curriculum are listed on below and through

pg. 30.

Critical Thinking Skills

During the current school year, about how often have you done the following?

Never Sometimes Often Very Often

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments.

X X X X

During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following?

Very Little

Some Quite a Bit

Very Much

Memorizing course material. X X X X Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations.

X X X X

Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts.

X X X X

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source.

X X X X

Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information.

X X X X

How much as your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and

personal development in the following areas?

Very Little Some Quite a Bit

Very Much

Thinking critically and analytically. X X X X Solving complex real-world problems. X X X X


Communication Skills During the current school year, about how often have you done the following?


Asked questions or contributed to course discussions in other ways.

X X X X

Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in.

X X X X

How much as your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

Very Little

Some Quite a Bit

Very Much

Writing clearly and effectively. X X X X Speaking clearly and effectively. X X X X

Teamwork During the current school year, about how often have you done the following?


Worked with other students on course projects or assignments.

X X X X


Very Little

Some Quite a Bit Very Much

Working effectively with others. X X X X Empirical & Quantitative Skills How much as your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

Very Little

Some Quite a Bit Very Much

Analyzing numerical and statistical information.

X X X X





Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue.

X X X X

Tried to better understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective.

X X X X

Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept.

X X X X

During the current school year, about how often have you had discussions with people from the following groups?


People with religious beliefs other than your own.

X X X X

People with political views other than your own. X X X X How much as your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?

Very Little

Some Quite a Bit

Very Much

Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics.

X X X X




Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments.

X X X X


During the current school year, about how often have you had discussions with people from the following groups?


People of a race or ethnicity other than your own. X X X X People from an economic background other than your own.

X X X X

People with religious beliefs other than your own. X X X X People with political views other than your own. X X X X


Very Little

Some Quite a Bit

Very Much

Understanding people of other backgrounds (economic, racial/ethnic, political, religious, nationality, etc.)

X X X X


CULTURE, DIVERSITY, & GLOBALIZATION SURVEY The Culture, Diversity, and Globalization Survey is administered each fall semester to freshmen and each spring semester to seniors. Furthermore, international students and students planning on studying abroad are invited to complete this survey each fall semester and spring semester. In this survey, students are asked about their intercultural sensitivity, perceptions of diversity and globalization, preparedness to compete in a global world, and other related concepts. The items for the Culture, Diversity, and Globalization survey can be accessed on the Assessment & Measurement-Data Sources webpage.



FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE (FYE) SURVEY The following survey items will be used to assess Social Responsibility. Please read the following statements and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agre

e

Strongly

Agree N/A

Eagle Excursions (off-campus events)

provided opportunities to be involved

with others and learn about the

surrounding community.

X

X

X

X

X

X

If you participated in The Gender Studies POD please answer the following question… The POD Learning Community allowed

me to connect with other students and

developed intellectual connection to the

Gender Studies theme.

X

X

X

X

X

X


USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The Academic Assessment Coordinator will analyze the Core Curriculum assessment results and will report these results in abbreviated form to the President, Associate Provost, VPAA, Deans, and department chairs. Both the abbreviated and full reports will be posted on the Assessment & Measurement-Data Sources webpage. Faculty in programs with course offerings in the Core Curriculum will be asked to review the assessment findings and to submit information on actions taken for the Core Curriculum Addendum Report. The Academic Assessment Coordinator will provide academic programs with a worksheet they can use to complete and submit this information.

CONCLUDING PRINCIPLES

The proposed assessment plan for Texas A&M University-Texarkana’s Core Curriculum is founded on several principles drawn from best practices in Core Curriculum assessment.

First, the most effective way to approach assessment of the Core is from a programmatic perspective. This approach “conceptualizes general education as a coordinated whole leading to the development of the overall student as a member of society” (Nichols & Nichols, 2001, p. 17). This approach “considers general education as a whole with identifiable outcomes and different disciplines contributing to each of those outcomes” (p. 19). Nichols and Nichols note the advantages of this approach to be:

(a) its comprehensive treatment of the subject, (b) its facilitation of assessment “beyond the individual section and instruction level,” (c) its feasibility for implementation within an achievable and sustainable level of effort, and (d) the extent to which this approach fits most regional accrediting association expectations. (p. 19)

Second, the plan is based on the idea that the best way to assess expansive Core Objectives, like those required by the THECB, is through the evaluation of student work samples drawn from course assignments that are intended to demonstrate students’ attainment of the Core Objectives. These assignments serve as direct measures of student performance, supply specific information about student performance, and can provide results that help target areas of success and needed improvement in the Core (Nichols & Nichols). Third, the Core Curriculum should be viewed not as the responsibility of individual programs, courses, or faculty, but as the province of the university (Nichols & Nichols).



Viewed from this perspective, any Core assessment plan should provide the ability to draw university level conclusions about the effectiveness of the Core. The plan presented here will allow conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of the Core at the university level. Fourth, the Core Objectives, as identified by the THECB, should not be considered adequately developed through a small number of courses early in a student’s academic career. Instead, the Core Objectives are developed throughout a student’s career at the university (Nichols & Nichols). A baseline should be established to allow comparison of learning gains made over time. Such baselines allow for comparisons between students’ performance on Core Objectives early in their career and toward the end of their career, or value-added assessment (Allen, 2004). To establish such benchmarks, examples of student work will be collected in Core Curriculum courses and assessed using common rubrics. Fifth, the assessment plan outlined here also focuses in part on student performance at the upper-level. The focus on measuring performance at the upper-level supports the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2012b) Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1, “The institution identified college-level general education competencies and the extent to which students have attained them” (p. 29). The rationale for this standard includes the following, “the institution is responsible for identifying measures to determine the extent to which students have attained those competencies during their course of study as well as the extent to which students have actually attained those competencies” (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, 2012a, p. 66). Required documentation for this standard include, “evidence of the extent to which students of undergraduate degree programs have attained the college-level competencies” (p. 67). It is clear that SACS expects the development of the general education competencies/objectives to take place throughout a student’s college career and not just in lower-level Core courses. Therefore, to gain an accurate picture of student achievement on general education competencies/objectives it is also necessary to assess the Core Objectives as close to the end of their college career as possible. Sixth, the use of multiple measures will allow for a fuller picture of students’ achievement of the Core Objectives (Allen, 2004). Multiple measures are incorporated into the Core assessment plan through the use of direct and indirect measures. Seventh, faculty involvement is essential at all stages of the Core assessment process (Allen 2004; Palomba & Banta, 1999; THECB, n.d., Core Curriculum assessment guidelines). Faculty will be meaningfully involved in each step of the Core Curriculum assessment process outlined in this document, although the new process is also intended to reduce the work load on individual faculty members. The responsibility for assessing student work, tracking student performance, and documenting results falls at the university level and not on individual faculty. Eighth, academic freedom and assessment should be viewed as compatible, not antithetical. Gary Rhoades, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, addressed this very issue:


To some observers as well as some faculty, the AAUP’s principles and policies might suggest that the association encourages its members to resist the assessment of student learning outcomes, including action on that data to reform curriculum and instruction. That is a fundamental misreading and misapplication of the association’s basic principles as they pertain to assessment and institutional improvement . . . Assessment of student learning and reform of teaching and academic programs are Core academic activities. As such, the AAUP sees them as being the primary responsibility of faculty—individually and collectively. (Gold, Rhoades, Smith, & Kuh, 2011, p. 7)

As noted, faculty will be involved in and hold veto in the decision making at all steps of development and implementation of the Core Curriculum assessment process. At all points, care has been and will be taken to respect academic freedom and faculty rights.

Core Curriculum assessment is not an evaluation of student, professor, or course performance. Core Curriculum assessment is forbidden for use to assess faculty for performance review or tenure purposes.


REFERENCES

Allen, M. J. (2004). Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Allen, M. J. (2006). Assessing General Education Programs. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Gold, L., Rhoades, G., Smith, M., & Kuh, G. (2011, May). What Faculty Unions Say About Student

Learning Outcomes Assessment. Occasional Paper #9. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retreived from http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/Union.pdf.

Nichols, J. O., & Nichols, K. W. (2001). General Education Assessment for Improvement of

Student Academic Achievement: Guidance for Academic Departments and Committees. New York: Agathon Press.

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment Essentials: Planning Implementing, and

Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2012a). Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. Decatur, GA: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2012b). The Principles of

Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement. (5th

ed.). Decatur, GA: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (n.d.) Core Curriculum assessment guidelines.

Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=24D2FE55-C9B7-419A-4D65413B13CD44ED

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (n.d.) Elements of the Texas Core Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=427FDE26-AF5D-F1A1-

E6FDB62091E2A507

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (n.d.) Quick Reference for Core Curriculum 2014. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/2737.PDF?CFID=33586187&CFTOKEN=85299995

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (n.d.) Texas Core Curriculum. Retrieved from

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=6AB82E4B-C31F-E344-C78E3688524B44F

http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/Union.pdf

http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/Union.pdf

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=24D2FE55-C9B7-419A-4D65413B13CD44ED

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=24D2FE55-C9B7-419A-4D65413B13CD44ED

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=427FDE26-AF5D-F1A1-E6FDB62091E2A507

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=427FDE26-AF5D-F1A1-E6FDB62091E2A507

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/2737.PDF?CFID=33586187&CFTOKEN=85299995

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/2737.PDF?CFID=33586187&CFTOKEN=85299995



Documents

CORE CURRICULUM A S S E S S M E N T P L A N · SPAN 2311 SPAN 2326 Creative Arts (050) 3 SCH i These courses focus on the appreciation and analysis of creative artifacts and works