University of the Ozarks

Mentor Program Assessment and Evaluation

Assessment Activities in 2006-2007

For the purposes of general education assessment, these are the assessment goals of Critical Inquiry as established by the Assessment Committee in Spring, 2006 and approved by the Senate as part of the Assessment proposal.

Objectives: 

1.     Students will demonstrate intellectual development through growth in the following areas:

a.  Ability to use goal-setting techniques and self-motivation

                   b.  Appreciation of diverse cultural and intellectual viewpoints

                   c.  Understanding of their own learning style and personality type

2.     Students will demonstrate social development through growth in the following areas:

a.  Emotional intelligence

b.  Employing interdependence

c.  Forging connections with classmates, the University, and the community

3.     Students will demonstrate spiritual development through growth in the following areas:

a.  Self-awareness

b.  Personal responsibility

c.  Self-management

d.  Ethical reasoning

4.     Students will be able to identify support networks within the University for assistance with career and academic planning, tutoring, and counseling

Working List of Assessment Instruments Embedded in Core Courses

All sections will undertake these two assessment activities as detailed below.

Self-Assessment Surveys from On Course Textbook

As we did last year, all students will be asked to take the self-assessment survey from the On Course textbook at the beginning of the course and again at the end as a post-test. This can be taken by photocopying the survey from the book and filling it is or taking the survey at the course web site.  The data from these surveys should be recorded by the mentor in the table provided (see page 14 of the printed Handbook or get a copy from the Q drive under "self-assessment table") and submitted at the end of the term to the Mentor Program Coordinator.

Moral Reasoning Case Study

All students will write about a case study on academic integrity in a short reflective essay that evaluates the student’s understanding of academic integrity and personal responsibility.  The case study agreed on for this year is given on page 14 of this handbook and is posted at the Mentor web site and Q drive under Mentor Program.  The rubric for evaluating the responses is given below.  The case study will be used as a pre-test and post-test and will be evaluated externally.  CI instructors are responsible for collecting the student responses and submitting them to the Mentor Program Coordinator at the end of the term.  Please make sure to mark the responses clearly as pre-test or post-test.   Identifying marks—names, e.g.—should be removed from all responses before submission.  Please do the pre-test early in the term—in the first week, if possible—in order to provide a valid picture of the students’ skills coming into college.

Rubric for external evaluation of Academic Integrity Case Study

Excellent	Good	Acceptable	Fair	Poor
5	4	3	2	1
Clearly sees Arnie as bearing personal responsibility for his failing grade     Consistently uses objective language, is able to see the issue from different points of view, provides logical evidence for position	Gives Arnie primary responsibility but also blames others       Uses objective language, is able to see the issue from different points of view, provides logical evidence for position	Apportions some responsibility to all characters, including Arnie.       Uses objective language but inconsistently, provides some logical evidence for position but does not think the issue through completely nor see all the different points of view.	Assigns some responsibility to Arnie but sees him as a victim, blaming others for his failing grade.   Some objective language and logical analysis but depends primarily on subjective measures for rationale.	Does not see Arnie as being responsible for his failing grade.       Little use of objective language, little or no evidence of understanding different points of views; subjective rather than logical analysis; little or no support given for position

ASSESSMENT CASE STUDY:
PROFESSOR LOVELIT

Reggie was really upset. He hadn’t started the paper. In fact he had only read about 25 pages out of the 300 he needed to read before beginning the paper. Making matters worse, he had missed class discussions because of games. The first thing Reggie did was call SALLY, his academic support counselor, to see if he could work with a tutor on his paper. Sally met with him, but she told him tutoring wouldn’t help until he read more of the book. He asked her if she had read the book, and she said no. Reggie tried to read more on the weekend, but he didn’t have much time because of a game.  Besides he had to prepare for exams in other classes.

By Sunday night Reggie was really stressed out and started searching the Internet to see what he could find out about the book.  Finally, he found an essay on the Internet and used it to write his paper. The next day he ran into ARNIE, another student in his class. Arnie said he hadn’t started on the essay and was still trying to finish the book. Reggie told Arnie about the Internet essay, but warned him against using much of it since he was already using it for his essay. On Tuesday, Reggie took his essay to Sally to have her read it over. Sally told him the essay didn’t make much sense and asked him to explain to her what he was trying to say. She soon realized he hadn’t read much more of the book and told him she really couldn’t help him. She warned him about turning in someone else’s ideas as his own. Reggie went away discouraged. On Wednesday he tried to revise the essay some more before turning it in on Thursday morning.

Meanwhile, Arnie kept trying to read the book. However, he was really upset because the book was difficult and he couldn’t read it quickly.  Wednesday night in a panic, he took the Internet essay, added his own introduction and conclusion and turned it in during class on Friday.

On Sunday night when Reggie returned from his meet, he had a voice mail message from Professor Lovelit asking him to come to her office on Monday morning. At the meeting, she explained that she knew he and Arnie had not written their own papers. Not only were the papers almost exactly alike, but also she had found the original essay on the Internet. On top of that their papers were not about the assigned topic. She told him that they would both receive and F for their final grade in the course.

Back to Home Page