Planning the responses to College of Engineering and Architecture

Planning the responses to College of Engineering and Architecture Meeting notes today to organize efforts to send feedback to the college and its programs

Analysis of Inter-rater agreement 2009-10


Thanks for telling me that you completed rating Honors also.

Our average ratings for that program were 5; 5.5; 4.5; 5  so we are a little lower than you, but in the same category “Integrating” in all but one.

You can see all our results here:

We are exploring two measures of inter-rater reliability, within 1 point and within the same category.

In terms of scores, see the graph, which we think is good. 83% of our scores are within 1 point of each other

Regarding being in the same category, we are not doing as well, it seems that we often come close, but straddle the lines.

What is valuable about you rating 2 programs (one high and one low) is that we can begin to get a sense that you see our measure in the same way that we do.  Another kind of test we need to do is see if outsiders agree with us in the messy middle.

We have more work like this to do with external stakeholders to see how well our tool plays in the wider arenas


On 10/13/10 4:40 PM, “Lee” wrote:

> Hi Nils,
> I sent in my review of Honors.  I gave them all top marks.  Was I right?  They
> struck me as being the Bar we’re all trying to reach!  It’s almost like you
> wrote the review rubric to FIT what they’ve done!?
> Lee
> ________________________________
> From: Nils Peterson []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:47 PM
> To: Lee
> Subject: Another WSU program to review
> Lee,
> Rather than Business, I’m giving you our Honors program. This is a program
> that has worked with our unit for several years and we know them.
> I think you will find it contrasts from Biology’s report in ways that may help
> you exercise more of the rubric’s scale.
> Thanks for your interest and help

Continued work to develop UnivPort website

Here is a calendar of our end of year 2009-10 work to finish reports to NWCCU and discussion around data and representations to get the website developed.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Nils Peterson
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:20:35 -0700
To: Corinna Lo , Gary Brown , Joshua Yeidel , Peg Collins
, Jayme Jacobson
Conversation: Ratings Page on UP/2009-2010
Subject: Re: Ratings Page on UP/2009-2010

Corinna, Its helpful to understand your intention. It seems to me that this may also be a discussion about summative vs formative. That is, ready comparison could encourage programs to find where they are in the community, to quickly find programs that performed higher on a given dimension, etc. The current implementation that makes comparison difficult makes it feel to me like our intention is summative.

On 10/13/10 9:16 PM, “Corinna Lo” wrote:

I think technically it would be possible in Mathematica.  My concern initially when I made the chart is that checkboxes are too inviting for comparison… For this particular use case, people will naturally be drawn to compare between programs across colleges.  This is what made me created the chart in dropdown menu instead.  I can envision other use cases, such as comparing program’s target and direct assessment of student work.  Then checkbox will be a good option to have.

– corinna

On 10/13/10 8:27 PM, “Brown, Gary” wrote:

I like the one with small charts to the right. It works fine. I also will think about trimming the prose.  I imagine, however, we will be asked to provide the check box comparisons we had in the Google docs approach.  Will this be possible to do with Mathmatica?

From: Yeidel, Joshua
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:32 PM
To: Lo, Corinna; Collins, Peggy; Peterson, Nils; Brown, Gary; Jacobson, Jayme K
Subject: Ratings Page on UP/2009-2010

I was dissatisfied with the layout of the Ratings page because the copy is so long it pushed the charts “below the fold”, as they say in the newspaper business.

I put together a test page called Ratings1 (not published, available only by logging in):

The College chart on this page comes from a test Mathematica page I made based on Corinna’s chart page, but somewhat smaller.  [I didn’t bother with the other charts until I get some feedback on this.]  I don’t think the chart can’t be much smaller because the dropdown has to fit the full name of CAHNRS.

If you look at this in a 1024×768 window, the copy column is narrow, but not unbearably so, IMO.  In wider windows, it works fine.

What do you think?

— Joshua

—— End of Forwarded Message