ILLC Meeting Minutes 10/3/17

Agenda Item

Notes

Action Items

Updates and Announcements

Received artifacts. When collecting artifacts, need to get an assignment description. Margot McDonald wants to share senior work. Stern Neill wants to share, but waiting to find what we need.

Review: Upper Division Sample Artifacts

• The desire is to understand the process for the work. ILLC can provide content and recommendations to add to assignments that need buttressing. Instructors may have to be asked to add what’s needed to their assignments.
• Journalism: Is the volunteers work going to match the assignments given? Are they too difficult to match to the rubric? If the Community’s goal is to get assignments from across campus, it’s possible to get a different artifact from Journalism, if this doesn’t fit the expectations.
• Nutrition and Kinesiology artifacts seemed to fit better.
• Moved away from upper division GE focus. Purpose was to get end of career artifacts; GE doesn’t provide that. Will be easier to pick from upper division work.

Discussion: Rubric Needs Assessment and Assignment Design

• Producer vs Consumer: Is the data of SAILS results available from other campuses. NSSE doesn’t get to all the questions the group is asking. May have to expand and include new questions. NSSE isn’t really meant to get answers to everything. Point is what do students consume? It’s important to know that. Indirect measures show below but direct show that’s not necessarily true. Triangulation important so students aren’t being measured with only one instrument. CLA+ could be another instrument with peer comparisons.
• Critical Thinking design asked for the metacognitive component, but not everyone had it in their rubric. Hard to measure because of that.
• At point of capstone project, students shouldn’t be struggling. Difficulties usually at lower levels. At that point information to research is narrowed down to specific search tools. The types of information literacy practices are going to be different as they progress through their career. Might be more attention to process at the early stages, but not so much as they understand how to weed out instruments they know won’t help their research/work.
• Assumptions being made that students know what they are doing at the upper level when researching.
• How/Where students locate and select information more important at lower level. They will know where to look in upper level work. Want to add in the consumer piece into the assignments for the sake of the assessment itself. Seems that students not really learning research skills/techniques at lower levels; it shows when doing upper division research.
• What is the outcome of this assessment? What if we find Poly students fall below expectations? If we add in things not necessarily used in those classes, we aren’t getting a clear picture on the process in those classes. Asking students about their process is something faculty should be doing. Asking for evidence of what the group hopes is already there, through a separate process.

Looking Ahead

What’s next

• What are we looking for when we assess the artifacts? What will it take to add in new ideas? Need to understand what this process looks like. Don’t want to make it too complex.

Members bring in activities they are using already to get students to think about their process.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 24; 9:10-10:00, Room 35-319B

Fall 2017 Meeting Schedule

Tuesday 09/19; 9:10 to 10:00am (35-319B)

Tuesday 10/03; 9:10 to 10:00am (35-319B)

Tuesday 10/24; 9:10 to 10:00am (35-319B)

Tuesday 11/07; 9:10 to 10:00am (35-319B)

Tuesday 11/28; 9:10 to 10:00am (35-319B)