In our first presentation First Presentation of Harvesting Feedback as Accreditation System we struggled with how to represent the curricular map. We used this chart in the Prezi
Each program goal is a column, courses are rows, aspirations for how well the program goal is met in the course is a number and color in the grid. Theron came back to argue that this was hard to read and the radar presentations we had been using for reporting feedback was a better representation.
As an outcome of the meetings of the Liaisons to pilot the rubric and the Assessment of Assessment process was discovery of some interesting data in the Honors Self-study used for the pilot.
Honors had surveyed each faculty and each course for the course’s aspirations on level of proficiency on the WSU Big 6 Goals, which had been adopted as the Honors College Learning Outcome Goals. The survey provided a dataset for doing a curricular map in Honors college, below:
—— Forwarded Message
From: Nils Peterson
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:46:29 -0700
To: Carol Anelli , “Walker, Libby”
Cc: Gary Brown
Conversation: Honors Learning Outcomes Survey data
Subject: Honors Learning Outcomes Survey data
I have made progress with the data summaries you sent me. They tell an interesting story which I am mocking up as a part of prototype of an Honors Learning Outcomes report. I think it has the potential to make a very interesting worked example, and seems more compelling for a next step than my proposal on Monday to re-organize the Honors NWCCU document to make it align with Garys draft template.
Here is the graph I made with the aggregated data . We have been using these radar graphs to help visualize multi-dimensional rubric data. You will see the 6 goals around the rim, from CT= Critical thinking thru Disc=Discipline. The scale ranges from 0 at the center to 6 at the rim. I set these values in your data: 2=Emerging; 4=Developing; 6=Mastering. N/A in your survey is effectively a zero on this scale.
Here is what I see, and why I call it a curriculum map. Each Honors course is supposed to have big 6 as its goals, and the approximately concentric circles indicate that the aspirations of faculty for 100-level courses are lower than for 400 level courses. HOWEVER, there are several places where the higher level courses are not expecting more than lower level courses. In Disc, the 400-level course is expecting less than the 100 level course. I think this may be a data transcription error which I will check from the raw data.
I see in the original survey that collected the data above, faculty were asked to share assignments, sample rubrics and/or sample student work to Libby. Did that happen? Can they be found? We could consider comparing a review of those artifacts with the faculty’s self-reported intentions
—— End of Forwarded Message