Assessment Course

PROMPT:

The institution has employed a first-year experience (FYE) pilot program for at-risk, first-year student populations. In addition to a specific introductory course sequence, students are engaged with intrusive and proactive student success resources and interventions (e.g., academic advising, tutoring, collaborative learning). Faculty and student services have reported enhanced outcomes for these students compared to students who were not part of the FYE pilot and are considering scaling the pilot to a larger population or potentially the entire student body. 

Given that information, please respond to the following prompts:

1. Which elements of your mental model resonate with the situation? 

2. For your given assessment approach, how might you mitigate bias from you or others associated with this scenario?

 

COMPLETION CONSIDERATIONS:

The rubric below is provided based on related elements to the prompt, as well as common clarifying questions from the instructor based on student responses.

Regardless of quality, length of past submissions varied between 100 and 400 words. Know appropriate responses tended to be in the middle or closer to the top end of the range. This is not a hard word limit, so you can go over if needed.

Rubric

Module 5: FYE Case Study Rubric

Module 5: FYE Case Study Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Individual Application	5 pts Shares or applies their mental model from personal identities and/or professional experiences in a way that is relevant to the assignment and easy to understand. 3 pts Shares or applies their mental model from personal identities and/or professional experiences, but may not be relevant to the assignment or easy to understand. 0 pts Does not share or apply any perspective from personal identities and/or professional experiences in relation to the assignment.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Critical Lens	5 pts Supported with logic or reference to course material, identifies and pushes back on at least one premise element or prompt ambiguity from a diversity, equity, or inclusion lens. 3 pts Identifies at least one premise element or prompt ambiguity that may be worth questioning worth pushback from a diversity, equity, or inclusion lens. 0 pts Does not mention or see any issues in premise elements or prompt ambiguity worth pushback from a diversity, equity, or inclusion lens.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Complete Response	5 pts Completely addresses both elements of the prompt. 3 pts Partially addresses one or both elements of the prompt. 0 pts Does not address both elements of the prompt.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reference to Materials	5 pts Response includes reference to materials or concepts from the module (or beyond) which are relevant and explained clearly. 3 pts Response includes a reference to materials or concepts from the module (or beyond), but the concept may not be relevant or explained clearly. 0 pts Response does not include any reference to materials or concepts from the module (or beyond).	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Response Structure	5 pts Response is clear, logically organized, and easy to follow or understand. 3 pts Response may not be one of the following: clear, logically organized, and easy to follow or understand. 0 pts Response is not any of the following: clear, logically organized, and easy to follow or understand.	5 pts
Total Points: 25

Articles and Youtube videos to use

https://www.presence.io/blog/how-you-can-use-assessment-to-strive-toward-equity-in-higher-education/

https://www.presence.io/blog/informing-relationships-with-personality-and-the-platinum-rule/

https://journals.canisius.edu/index.php/CSPANY/article/view/303/502

https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/equity/#1559160865243-4098336b-be48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG7c6g2zRIo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmJP4-9Dhs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAJGTHcYyGE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJQ99jdISWM

 

· American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (2007). ASK standards: Assessment skills and knowledge content standards for student affairs practitioners and scholars. Washington, D. C.: American College Personnel Association (ACPA).

· Association for Institutional Research (AIR). (2013, May 2). Code of ethics and professional practice (CODE). Retrieved from Association for Institutional Research (AIR) website: https://airweb.org/Membership/Pages/CodeOfEthics.aspx (Links to an external site.)

· Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005: 99–111. doi:10.1002/he.190 download

· Chávez, A. F. & Sanlo, R. (Eds.). (2013). Identity and leadership: Informing our lives, informing our practice. Washington, DC: NASPA Publications.

· Demeter, M. (2013). “Assessing Student Learning Outcomes in Student Affairs: A Primer and Mixed-Methods Strategies.” (Links to an external site.) CSPA-NYS Journal of Student Affairs, 13 (2).

· Heiser, C., Prince, K., & Levy, J. (2017). Examining critical theory as a framework to advance equity through student affairs assessment (Links to an external site.) . Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry, 2(1).

· Henning, G. W., Mitchell, A. A., & Maki, P. L. (2008). The assessment skills and knowledge standards: Professionalizing the work of assessing student learning and development. About Campus, 13(4), 11-17.

· Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R.E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

· Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

· Maki, P. L. (2010). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution (2nd ed.). Stylus Publishing LLC: Sterling, VA.

· Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January).  Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29) (Links to an external site.) . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

·

· NILOA has captured the many responses and extensions of the conversation from this paper on this Equity in Assessment (Links to an external site.) page.

· Schuh, J. H., Biddix, J. P., Dean, L. A., & Kinzie, J. (2016). Assessment in student affairs: A contemporary look (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

· Schuh, J. H., & Upcraft, M. L. (1998). Facts and myths about assessment in student affairs. About Campus, 3(5), 2-8.