The
Assessment of Learning Project
Departmental
Project Team Summary Report
Spring 2001
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction: Description of the Departmental Project Team
II. Individual Reports
a. Robert Jones—Mathematics
i. Introduction
ii. Background
iii. Implementation
iv. Comments
v. Statistics
b. Fari Towfiq—Mathematics
i. Introduction
ii. Benchmarks
iii. Implementation and Observations
iv. Explaining Core Skills and Assessment
v. Team Presentations
vi. Skills Assessment Form
vii. Self-Assessment and Team Self Assessment Form
viii. Statistics
c. Cindy Anfinson—Mathematics
i. Introduction
ii. Hypothesis and Expectations
iii. Procedure
iv. Conclusions
v. Statistics
vi. Future
d. Matthews Chakkanakuzhi—Mathematics
i. Introduction
ii. Expectations
iii. Observations
iv. Concerns and Comments
v. Conclusion
e. Michael Mufson—Performing Arts
i. Prologue
ii. Preliminaries
iii. Procedures/Process
iv. Outcomes
f. Lee Chen—English as a Second Language
i. Introduction
ii. Two Team Projects
iii. Project #1
iv. Project #2
v. Lessons Learned
g. Cynthia Watson—English as a Second Language
Introduction: Description of the Departmental Project Team
The purpose of the departmental project team is to work in conjunction with the Assessment of Learning Project (ALP) to apply Palomar College’s list of Core Skills to the content and activities of courses in three selective disciplines. The five members of the Departmental Project Team represent three disciplines at Palomar College. Fari Towfiq and Cynthia Watson are the Team’s coordinators and they also serve on the ALP team. Robert Jones represents the discipline of mathematics. Michael Mufson represents the discipline of the performing arts. Lee Chen represents the discipline of English as a Second Language. Recently, Lee Kerckhove has joined the team as a co-coordinator of the departmental project team, and Matthews Chakkanakuzhi and Cynthia Anfinson have joined the mathematics portion of the project. A brief overview of this project follows.

Robert Jones, Assistant Professor, is following his new assessment-inclusive syllabus in his Pre-Algebra class. Fari Towfiq, Associate Professor, is implementing the pilot assessments in her Intermediate Algebra classes. Towfiq and Jones worked together to formulate the benchmarks for Mathematics and are using the same assessment methods and feedback forms in their respective classes. They have been very careful to make their assessments convenient enough to fit into mathematics courses that must cover a prescribed number of chapters in a standardized text in 16 weeks. Towfiq and Jones have selected two Core Skill areas to assess in their respective algebra classes. In the first area of Cognition, they provide for the assessment of students' use of the two Core Skills of Problem-Solving, and Transfer of Knowledge. The "Skills Assessment Cover Sheet" is a feedback form they developed to be filled out by the instructor and attached to students' homework or exam papers after a grade has been assigned. Towfiq and Jones do not intend for this Cover Sheet to determine any part of their students' grades. In their classes it is for on-going feedback only. They also developed four forms (Peer Assessment, Team Assessment, Self-Assessment, and Instructor Evaluation of Teamwork) that single out Teamwork in the Core Skill area of Social Interaction. Each provides for feedback/assessment from various perspectives on team participation and team presentations. Recently, Chakkanakuzhi and Anfinson contributed to the revision and modification of these forms.
PERFORMING ARTS
Michael Mufson, Associate
Professor, Theater Arts, is applying the benchmarks that he formulated to his
Introduction to Theater class, which includes improvisation, workshop
scripting, and performance of the students' own pieces. Mufson chose the
general Core Skills (ALP website) categories of Social Interaction, Aesthetic
Responsiveness, and Cognition as the basis for his Introduction to Theater Arts
assessment pilot. His first two feedback forms, "Self Assessment" and
"Peer Assessment," focus on the Social Interaction abilities of
"Teamwork" and "Effective Citizenship." Students use them
to assess their three collaborative projects. His third feedback form,
"Visual Representation Assessment," applies to individual students'
Visual Representation projects. It focuses on the Cognitive category of
Analysis and Synthesis.
Lee Chen, Assistant Professor, has included his writing assessment benchmarks in the syllabus of his on-line ESL Advanced Writing class. His benchmarks are just as useful in the "real-space" classroom as they are in the virtual classroom. Lee Chen has designed an on-line ESL Advanced Writing course to be offered by Palomar College in the 2000-2001 academic year. He developed two forms. The first, "Instructor Feedback," applies to the sub-categories of Speaking and Listening. It provides information to the student from the instructor about the quality of his/her participation in the virtual class discussions. All students in the online class receive e-mailed feedback twice during the semester--in the third week and at the end. A second form, "Individual Assessment," appraises the student's writing, which is the fourth sub-category under the Core Skill of Communication. Students receive feedback via this Individual Assessment at the beginning and end of the semester, at about the same times they receive feedback on the quality of their online discussion.
Cynthia Watson, Associate Professor, is teaching a Literacy
Level English as a Second Language class using videotape assessment as a source
for feedback and evaluation in the two language modes of speaking and
listening. She has developed a video
assessment for her Beginning ESL class, which focuses on the Communication Core
Skills of Speaking and Listening (ALP website). She developed assessment
benchmarks for student video presentations at four proficiency levels, and a
form that she and her students use when they rate videotaped presentations.
This form closely (but not exactly) follows a primary trait rating scale
design. At the beginning of the semester, it is used for feedback only; at
semester's end it is used both for feedback and to assign a grade. In Beginning ESL, Watson videotapes students
twice--at the beginning and end of the semester. She then tracks these
students' developing speaking proficiencies by videotaping them at the end of
each semester as they move upward through the levels of the ESL program.
Individual
Reports
Robert Jones – Mathematics Department

Introduction
For the Spring 2000
semester, I piloted assessment materials in my Prealgebra class (Math 15) that
Fari Towfiq and I had developed the previous Fall. We both agreed that we wanted to emphasize the critical thinking
component of the Core Skills document (as identified by ALP) within the context
of our math classes, and we also wanted to make teamwork & communication a
more significant part of the work that the students did in class. Since Fari and I realized that we’d have
difficulty getting other members on the math faculty to try our
materials--especially if they generated a significant amount of extra work--our
goal with these materials was to make assessment a more ‘seamless’ part of the
day-to-day activities in our classes.
At Palomar College, Math 15
is the only math class (along with Math 10 – Arithmetic) without a prerequisite.
Typically, the majority of the students taking this class are re-entry
students who’ve been out of school for a long time; others find themselves in
Math 15 after making an unsuccessful attempt to pass a placement exam that
would enable them to take Math 50 (Algebra).
Many of these students have a tremendous amount of anxiety towards math
and a very low opinion of their abilities – attitudes that have been developed
through previous experiences with mathematics that, for the most part, have
been characterized by frustration & failure.
Hence, aside from trying to
get students ready to take Math 50, one of my main tasks in teaching any Math 15 class is simply to get
students to have a more positive attitude toward their work and toward
mathematics in general. Even prior to
my participation with ALP, I’ve found that this can be facilitated by
structuring the class so that students are active
participants in the work that takes place there. As opposed to having students merely take notes (as passive
learners), I try to give them meaningful tasks and daily objectives that they
meet by working independently in small groups.
(Students are told on the first day that ‘groupwork’ is a significant
learning style in my classroom, and it’s part of the syllabus that I give to
them. I don’t employ this method in all
of my classes, but I’ve found that this approach is well-suited for students at
this level.) In this environment,
students learn that mathematics isn’t just a bunch of skills that are practiced
in isolation, but an active process that requires communication –
much like most work in the ‘real’ world.
Groups are encouraged to be self-sufficient and, by not having to spend the majority of the class lecturing at the
chalkboard, I’m free to walk around the class and to provide help as
needed. Hence, I can quickly assess my
students’ understanding of concepts while
they’re learning them, either by asking students to explain ideas to me or
to other members of their groups.
Within this context, then, I
believed that the assessment benchmarks that Fari and I developed would be less
‘invasive’ than they might be in other classes. It didn’t seem to be much of a ‘step’ for students to move from
explaining concepts within their groups to explaining them to the class. Also, I wanted to know if the critical
thinking forms that Fari and I had generated could have a positive effect on
student learning in a developmental class.
My Math 15 class for Spring
2000 met from 4:00 p.m. to 5:20 on Mondays and Wednesdays. I began the semester with about 30
students. They were told on the first
day that, in addition to the traditional evaluation tools--3 tests, daily
quizzes, homework checks, and a final exam--they would also be evaluated by
their ‘participation.’ I didn’t go
into any details as to what this meant (i.e., using group presentations to
review for the tests & the final exam), choosing instead to provide them as
the class developed. None of the
materials that Fari and I developed were used until after the first exam; I wanted my students to feel comfortable
within the class and to have a minimum level of mathematics to communicate
with.
Here’s the timeline I
followed:
Weeks 1 to 4: Groups formed & class routine established;
Test #1 given at the end of Week #4.
Weeks 5 to 10:
Group presentations begin (see Comments section); Skills Assessment
(critical thinking) forms completed & returned with Test #2 (Week 10).
Weeks 11 to 15: ‘Presentations’ continue in modified form
(see Comments section); Skills Assessment (critical thinking) forms not used with Test #3 (see Comments
section).
Week 16: New material completed (as specified in the
Course Outline of Record); review for Final (one class period).
1. Group Presentations: To prepare for Test #2, four groups (sixteen students total) were randomly picked from the existing teams and assigned topics – order of operations, adding and subtracting signed numbers, length and perimeter, and the ‘meaning’ of multiplication - to review for the class. In addition to demonstrating examples, each group provided three to five review problems related to their presentations. Because of time constraints, I wasn’t able to give the groups time in class to work on their presentations – they had to work on them outside of class and be ready to ‘go’ the next time we met. As a result, these initial presentations weren’t really ‘creative’; for each, one to two members wrote problems on the board while the remaining members asked the other students in the class how to solve them. None of the groups used the overhead projector or any other ‘visuals’ (posters, etc.). Some groups and group members were a little nervous and ‘stiff’ (and they told me so!), but this was to be expected. Overall, I can say that I was generally pleased with the level of effort and participation shown, and I felt that a positive standard had been set for future presentations. The class completed the peer review forms, which were given to the group members after each presentation. Also, I evaluated each group and gave them a grade; realizing that I wouldn’t have time outside of class to look at the self and team assessment forms, I didn’t have the groups fill these out.
2. Initially, Fari and I intended our students to make two group presentations – a portion of
the review for one test and part of the review for the Final. However, due to time constraints, I modified
the presentation process, making it much more informal. Groups were now sent to the board or called
upon--usually once or twice each period (toward the end of class)--to
demonstrate selected solutions. In this
way, communicating mathematics simply became a regular part of our daily routine, not just something that
was done before a test. Team members were still expected to justify their
results – both verbally and in writing.
Without a lot of time to prepare, these presentations were more
spontaneous than those associated with reviewing material for tests, and they were invaluable in helping me to
determine my students’ conceptions of the topics they were learning. I quickly scored these presentations using a
four point rubric; the peer review and associated paperwork were eliminated. By using this new format, I was able to
ensure that each student had at least two opportunities to speak to the
class.
3. Skills Assessment Form: Although my
students appreciated the comments and feedback this form provided, filling
these out for the students who took Test #2 turned out to be a very time-consuming
exercise. Hence, I had to abandon using
the form for Test #3. (Fari and I
subsequently modified this form, making it easier to fill out.) Regardless of using the form or not, I do
believe that, as critical thinking continued to be emphasized in the work
students did both inside and outside of class, many of them became more aware
of mathematics as a process – a way
of thinking – in which the explanation was as important as the answer.
Having piloted these new
materials in just one class, I believe it’s difficult to make statistically
significant comparisons with other Math 15 classes that I’ve taught. At the very least, more work should be done
in our department to ascertain the effect these approaches have on
learning. (I am currently using these
materials in my Prealgebra class for the Spring 2001 semester.)
Having said this, here are some
numbers for the class I taught in Spring ‘00 and the two previous sections of
Math 15 that I taught in the fall of 1998.
I used the same textbook for both semesters; Tests 2 & 3 and the
final were similar in terms of content & length. (‘Median score’ - 50% of the class scored above this mark, and
50% scored below;
- the arithmetic average for the given class –
i.e., the sum of the scores for the given class divided by the number of
scores;
represents the
‘standard’ deviation – it’s a measure of how far an ‘average’ score in a given
class falls from
.)
Test #2 –
|
Class |
Total Points |
Median |
|
|
|
F’ 98 ‘A’ |
62 |
44.5 |
44.1 |
11.1 |
|
F’ 98 ‘B’ |
52 |
40 |
39.8 |
7.8 |
|
SP ‘00 |
52 |
39 |
39.8 |
6.5 |
Test #3 –
|
Class |
Total Points |
Median |
|
|
|
F ’98 ‘A’ |
55 |
35.5 |
36.8 |
10.7 |
|
F ’98 ‘B’ |
55 |
39 |
36.9 |
11.1 |
|
SP ‘00 |
47 |
37.5 |
37.9 |
6.0 |
Final –
|
Class |
Total Points |
Median |
|
|
|
F ’98 ‘A’ |
75 |
51 |
50.4 |
13.1 |
|
F ’98 ‘B’ |
75 |
53 |
53.4 |
11.5 |
|
SP ‘00 |
79 |
60 |
60.2 |
10.0 |

In the Fall 1999 Semester,
my Math colleague Robert Jones and I, decided to modify the way we teach two of
our basic mathematics courses--Prealgebra (Math 15) and Intermediate Algebra
(Math 60). Under the guidance of the
ALP Departmental-Project Team, we prepared to depart from our traditional ways
of presenting the courses.
During this Fall Semester,
we selected three Core Skill areas for which we wanted to create performance
benchmarks. We hoped to use our new
benchmarks to assess the quality of our students' learning via their
performance in those three areas. In
the Spring 2000 Semester, we did indeed apply our new means of assessment and
our modified instructional methods to our respective math classes. The three areas on which we focused our
benchmarks follow here:
Area 1: Cognition
Analysis
and Synthesis
Problem
Solving
Creative
Thinking
Transfer of Knowledge and Skills to a New Context
Area
2: Communication
Speaking
Listening
Reading
Writing
Area 3: Social Interaction
Teamwork
During this process of
creating and applying our benchmarks, we realized that, if we were not careful,
Robert and I could generate a lot of extra work for ourselves and for other
faculty who would like to use our material.
Thus, we added a new goal to our benchmark project: keep it as user-friendly and efficient as
possible. We did not want to make the
assessment process so time-consuming that it would overburden our already very
busy Math Department colleagues.
Robert and I created five
different feedback forms for assessing in the three Core Skill Areas of
Cognition, Communication and Social Interaction.[CW1] The
“Skills Assessment Cover Sheet” allows the instructor to give feedback to
students in the Core Skill area of Cognition. The instructor attaches the Cover
Sheet to students’ homework, project, or exam papers after a grade has been
assigned. The other four forms (Peer Assessment of Team Presentations, Team
Self-Assessment Form, Self-Assessment Form, Instructor Evaluation of Teamwork)
single out Communication and Teamwork.
Each provides feedback/assessment from various perspectives on team
participation and team presentation.
For the Spring 2000
Semester, I piloted our new assessment materials in my two Intermediate Algebra
(Math 60)classes. One class met from
2:00 to 3:50 p.m., Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The other met from 4:00 to 5:50 p.m. on the same days.
Explaining Core Skills & Assessment
In addition to my routine first-day explanation of the course objectives, I talked about the importance of the Core Skills and emphasized the Core Skills this class would focus on. I also explained the benchmarks that we would use to assess these Core Skills. I told them what their grade for the course would be based on: 5 tests, 5 homework assignments, 4 projects, participation/attendance and a final exam.
Team presentations
The second day of the class,
I told the students that by the end of the second week of classes they needed
to form teams of 3 to 4 members each.
Each team would be responsible for one or two presentations that would
serve as review sessions for the tests and the final exam. Teams would choose
their own topics. By the end of the second week of the classes the teams were
formed and some of the teams had selected the chapters that they wanted to give
presentations on. Throughout the semester before each test, at least two groups
gave presentations, using the chalkboard, overhead projectors and computers to
review for the test.
After I gave the team assignment in both classes, I
noticed a very different classroom dynamic developing—a dynamic that I was not
used to seeing in my more traditionally taught Intermediate Algebra classes of
the past. Presenters were quite resourceful.
Many of them created handouts on the key topics. Several of them shared
the handy learning techniques they had discovered during preparation for their
presentation. In these two new classes
students were communicating with each other.
They were excited, and they accepted new responsibilities. I had not observed these activities and
attitudes in the traditional classes I had taught just one semester earlier
(Fall 1999)--classes which did not include teamwork, presentations, or
self-assessment.
These group presentations
gave me a couple of important insights into the teaching-learning process. I improved my teaching when I learned that
the group presentations gave me an opportunity to assess students' knowledge
and to correct their misunderstandings before they actually took the test. One very interesting insight about student
learning came to me through one of my best "A" students. She came to me before her presentation and
asked me to teach her the pronunciation of the algebraic expressions. I assumed that these presentations are the
only technical oral
presentations that most of my students would be exposed to before they graduate
or transfer to a four-year college.
At the end of each
presentation, the class completed the Peer Review forms and gave them to the
presenting. I also assessed each team
and gave oral feedback to the team and to the class. I did not use the Instructor Evaluation of Team Work form. I realized that it was more important to
give immediate feedback to the small group--rather than delayed written
comments--and to give that feedback so that the whole class could benefit from
it, rather than just the team only.
At first, Robert and I
intended our students to make two team presentations – a segment of the review
for one test and a piece of the review for the final. However, because of the time constraints every team gave only one
presentation, except for one team that did two reviews.
Skills Assessment Form
I filled out this form for
three different exams (#1, #3, #4).
Even though it provided valuable comments and feedback to the students,
it was very time-consuming to fill out these forms. It doubled my grading time.
Robert and I have talked about making changes in this form that we think
will make it easier to fill out.
Self-Assessment Form and Team Self-Assessment Form
At the end of each
presentation, the team members completed these two forms and gave them to
me. I reviewed them outside of class
and gave my oral commentary on them in the next class. I gave my feedback without naming teams or
individual presenters.
Statistics
|
|
Afternoon Classes |
Late Afternoon Classes |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Exams |
Exams |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
#2 |
#3 |
#4 |
#5 |
Final |
Final Grade |
#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
#4 |
#5 |
Final |
Final Grade |
|
|
Fall 1999
|
Average Scores |
74% |
67% |
62% |
64% |
55% |
60% |
71% |
75% |
70% |
68% |
58% |
55% |
59% |
67% |
|
Number of Students taking Test |
40 |
37 |
37 |
33 |
24 |
23 |
23 |
39 |
36 |
29 |
29 |
22 |
23 |
23 |
|
|
Retention |
57.7% |
59% |
|||||||||||||
|
Spring 2000
|
Average Scores |
80% |
70% |
68% |
61% |
54% |
60% |
69% |
81% |
75% |
71% |
72% |
76% |
76% |
82% |
|
Number of Students taking Test |
34 |
32 |
29 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
22 |
21 |
21 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
|
|
Retention |
73.5% |
64% |
|||||||||||||
The table above shows Average
Exam Scores, Final Grade results, and Retention percentages for four
Intermediate Algebra (Math 60) classes. I taught two of these classes in the
Fall 1999 Semester, and two in the Spring 2000 Semester. In the '99 classes, I used traditional
presentation and testing methods. In
the '00 classes, I used the assessment innovations Robert Jones and I had designed especially for this ALP pilot
semester.
I set up the table so that
it would be easy to compare the Fall 1999 classes to the Spring 2000 classes, as
well as to compare the Afternoon Classes to the Late Afternoon Classes.
What the table reveals about
the effect of teamwork, timely assessment, and feedback lets me see a trend
make an educated guess. At this point I
am a very long way from being able to make any statistically supported
claims. There are two topics I would
like to comment on, however. The most
consistent trend I see is in Student Retention; in both the Afternoon and Late Afternoon classes, the retention
percentage is better in the 2000 classes than in the 1999 classes.
I also see something very
interesting in the comparison of the two Late Afternoon classes. Not only is the 2000 retention percentage
higher than that for 1999, but the Exam scores and Final Grades are
consistently higher in 2000 than in 1999.
My educated guess is that I
was the variable associated with this impressive difference between the two
classes. I think I did a much better
job introducing and implementing the new assessment-inclusive activities in the
Spring 2000 Late Afternoon Class. Things went more smoothly, my instructions
and feedback were clearer, and students understood my goals better in that
class because I had the earlier Afternoon Class to practice and make my
mistakes in.
I look forward to the coming
semesters in which I'll continue using our ALP inspired methods and
materials. That work to come will give
clearer definition to what I'm only glimpsing now.
Cindy Anfinson--Mathematics Department

In the Fall 2000 semester I
participated in the Pilot Test of the ALP feedback forms developed by Robert
Jones and Fari Towfiq for the Mathematics Department. The feedback forms covered the three Core Skills areas of
Cognition, Communication, and Social Interaction. Five feedback forms had been prepared by Robert and Fari; I used
four extensively (Peer Assessment of Team Presentations, Team Self-Assessment
Form, Self-Assessment Form, and Instructor Evaluation of Teamwork Form) and one
briefly (Skills Assessment Cover Sheet Form).
I also prepared the draft of the Transfer of Knowledge and Skills to
a New Context for the Benchmarks for Core Skills.
For the Fall 2000 semester I
piloted the assessment materials in my Math 15 (Prealgebra) class that met from
12 – 12:50 pm on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. I selected this class to pilot the materials in for several
reasons. First, in Math 15 I always
review before every exam, so I knew I had ample time in my schedule for the
students to present review materials.
Second, I had taught the same course in the Fall 1999 semester. The two courses met at the same time and on
the same days. I felt that I would be
getting a very similar student population, and by controlling the variability,
I could have more confidence in the results of my study. The only major difference I noticed between
the two Math 15 courses was the Fall 2000 course had fewer non-native speakers
of English than the Fall 1999 course.
My expectations of the pilot
test program were very positive for two major reasons. In a past Math 15 course I had taught I had
students prepare a review for the final exam.
The students in that course did an outstanding job and seemed to enjoy
the experience. One group created a
"Fraction Action" game show, while another discussed halving or
doubling a cookie recipe to illustrate why we need to multiply or divide
fractions (and they brought the cookies in for the class to enjoy!). I felt that the students were excited and
empowered by the teamwork they participated in. The second reason I expected good results from the pilot test
program came from my discussions with Fari Towfiq. She had good results in her courses and I was hopeful that the
program would create a similar positive and effective learning environment in my
course.
I expected the following
outcomes from the pilot test program.
First, I anticipated that the Fall 2000 class would perform as well or
better than the Fall 1999 class. Since
the two classes were so similar in student composition I was expecting the Fall
2000 class to outperform the Fall 1999 class.
I was very hopeful that the class would show positive group interactions
from the teamwork and have more enthusiasm than my previous Math 15 class. I
feel that good group dynamics are very important in my classes, especially in
developmental math courses. I have
observed that students who get to know and form friendships with their fellow
students tend to “stick it out” better. I hope that by comparing retention
rates I may be able to justify this observation.
On the first day of class I handed out my syllabus and explained how they would be graded. I gave 4 exams, 4 homework assignments, 8 projects (one of which would be the classroom presentation), weekly quizzes, and a final exam. I did not go into great detail about the classroom presentation on the first day, but I did say they would be responsible for being a member of a group that would present one review for an exam. I had decided to grade their presentations so that the students would take them seriously. I decided to weight their review the same as a project for the final grade.
At the start of the second
week of the semester I told the students they needed to get into a group of 3-4
students by the end of the week. I let
them self-select their own groups. I do
not feel comfortable placing students in groups by assignment. The students then wrote their group members’
names on a 3” x 5” card and handed it to me.
A week before each exam, I randomly selected two 3” x 5” cards and read
out the teams. I meet with the selected
teams after class, and randomly assigned each team to present a review on half
of the material that was to be covered on the exam. I told them the basic requirements for their review was that they
give a 5 to 10 minutes classroom presentation, give a handout to everyone in
the class, and all participate equally on the presentation. I made available overhead transparencies,
overhead markers, and copied their handouts if they so requested.
I used the forms developed
by Fari and Robert during their presentations.
Each student watching the presentation received a Peer Assessment of
Team Presentation Form. After the
presentation I collected those forms, later read over them myself, and handed
them back to the presenting team during the next class period to review. I handed each team member a Team
Self-Assessment Form and a Self-Assessment Form and collected those at the end
of their presentation. I kept these for
my files. Finally, I used the
Instructor Evaluation of Teamwork Form to assess their presentation and to
assign a group grade. I made copies of
this form for each team member with their grade on it and handed it back to
them at the next class meeting. I
graded very generously on a scale of 1 to 10. If a team met my basic requirements for the presentation and put a
reasonable amount of effort into the presentation I gave them a 9. Most groups received a grade of 9 or 10.
I had misplaced the Skills
Assessment Cover Sheet and forgot to use it on the first 3 exams. This is my mistake. I did use it on the fourth exam, and on the
final exam. I followed Fari Towfiq’s
suggestion of selected one problem, working out the answer in detail and using
that as a master copy. Then, after
grading the exam, I looked at a student’s response to the question I had
selected, and marked the steps that they needed to improve on. I stapled this to their exam as a cover
sheet. I did not find this very time
consuming at all, and I will pilot this technique in two Math 50 classes in the
Spring 2001 semester and will be able to report in more detail on its
effectiveness.
I observed some positive
outcomes due to the class presentations.
The students reported that since they had to speak in front of the
class, they studied much harder than they would have without a
presentation. No one wants to look
foolish in front of their peers, and the students felt the pressure to do a
good job. The first group to present did an outstanding job and really set the
tone for the rest of the semester. They
made a wonderful, computer-generated review handout, had well written overheads
and did an overall excellent presentation.
Mathematical symbols are hard to generate on many word processors, so I
appreciated the effort they took in making that handout. Most of the groups thereafter also made up
handouts on the computer. This was not
something I was expected from Prealgebra students! I was very impressed by the depth and quality of the review
sheets they handed out to the class.
Another group did a fun game show type format, where they had the guys
sit on one half of the class, and the girls on the other half. They would write a problem up on the
overhead, and one guy and one girl would race to the board and try to work out
the problem correctly first!
The classroom environment
exhibited overall good large group dynamics.
Most of the students in that particular class were on the quiet
side. Having to work in a team, observing
fellow students give presentations, and learning the names of their fellow
students seemed to break the ice in that class. I was also pleased to note that most students seemed very
compassionate towards each other. They
gave mainly good marks on their Peer Assessment review forms, and the criticism
was constructive overall.
I would now like to present
a chart outlining the statistics comparing the Fall 1999 Math 15 class with the
Fall 2000 Math 15 class. I computed
each exam average by totaling the scores on the exam and dividing by the number
of students who took the exam. I
computed the retention rate by taking the number of people who took the final
and dividing by the number of people who took the first exam.
|
Semester |
|
Exams |
||||||
|
#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
#4 |
Final |
Final Grade |
|||
|
Fall 1999 |
Average Scores |
74.4 |
77.2 |
77.2 |
77.0 |
81.3 |
73.7% |
|
|
Number of Students taking Test |
38 |
33 |
32 |
26 |
29 |
36 |
||
|
Retention |
76.3% |
|||||||
|
Fall 2000 |
Average Scores |
83.6 |
84.5 |
73.5 |
75.8 |
82.2 |
85.4% |
|
|
Number of Students taking Test |
33 |
31 |
28 |
31 |
31 |
32 |
||
|
Retention |
93.9% |
|||||||
Looking at the statistics I
noticed the following. First, the
retention rate for Fall 2000 (ALP class) was much higher than the retention
rate for Fall 1999. The average grades
for exam #1, #2, and the final exam were higher for the Fall 2000 class than
the Fall 1999 class. The exam average
grades for the #2 and #3 were higher in the Fall 1999 class than the Fall 2000
class (ALP), but not by much. I'm not
sure why that dip occurred. However,
the ALP class (Fall 2000) overall did much better than the Fall 1999
class. I find these results very
encouraging. I would like to comment on
the difference between the number of students who took the final and the number
of students who received a final grade.
To compute the average of the final exam, I only calculated using the
number of the students who actually took the exam. To compute the average final grade I included all students who
received a letter grade. Of course,
some students "disappeared" on me and received a grade even though
they did not take all the exams.
Fari Towfiq, Robert Jones,
Mathews Chakkanakuzhi and I met at the end of the Fall 2000 semester to discuss
the forms themselves. We came up with
some modifications that I anticipate will make the forms easier to use for the
instructor. I will be using these new
forms in two Math 50 (Beginning Algebra) courses in the Spring 2001 semester. I
will also use the Skills Assessment Cover Sheet on each exam, which will allow
me to more effectively discuss its effectiveness. I am excited about continuing in this pilot program. Assessing students before they take they
exam, improving group dynamics, and allowing students to exhibit skills they do
not normally get to exercise in a math course (e.g., speaking in front of a group
and writing mathematics for their peers) are all effective methods to determine
if the students are performing effectively in the three Core Skills areas of
Cognition, Communication, and Social Interaction.

Introduction
I am an Associate Professor
in the Department of Mathematics. After completing my high school and first
three years of college in India, I came to the U.S. as a junior in the
Department of Mathematics at the California State University in Los Angeles
where I completed my B.S. and M.S degree programs in Mathematics. While at
CSULA, I had the opportunity to work with many students from students from
various academic, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. These include working
as tutor and/or discussion leader in the Minority Engineering Program (MEP),
MESA program and Educational Opportunity Program. I have never studied in any
community colleges. Also, at CSULA, I came to know the benefits of
study-groups. However, as a student I was never forced to work with any
students or groups in any of my classes by any instructor. Instead, often in my
classes we formed our own groups to study and discuss the materials covered in
class. These groups were made of volunteers of self-motivated students and we
all benefited from each other. Most my classes were traditionally lecture
classes and there were never any group-work done in any of my classes.
Only when I started teaching
that I realized that not every student learns from self-study or traditional
lectures. I always noticed (and many research supports) that students who are
goal-oriented and who have good study habits tend to do better in classes than
others. These students often seek help and voluntarily form study-groups.
However, I never thought that I would have to motivate students to study or do
their homework. Also, many times when I had my students do group-work, I find a
group of students working very hard and another group who hesitate to work at
all. By keeping track of these students, I came to know that the same group of
students, who willingly do the required work, produces good results in the
exams and good grades in the class. Despite of these observations, I was always
in the look out for new ideas, motivational techniques and teaching methods to
improve the student learning in my classes. I tried techniques such as
collecting homework, giving pop-quizzes, having students prepare for classes
prior to the lecture etc. I found out that each new technique benefits a few
more students and never found a unique technique that works for all.
In Spring 2000, while being
a member of the Peer Evaluation Team of Fari Towfiq, I came to know in detail
the work done by the Assessment Learning Project Team here at Palomar College.
I was very pleased with the multiple means of assessment that Fari used and the
group presentations done by students in class when they prepare for the exams.
I really liked the idea of having students prepare and present the review for
the exams. This will allow the instructor to fill in any gaps or correct any mistakes,
and give constructive feedbacks to the students before they were tested. I
decided to try this out in my classes.
Expectations
There were many
expectations. I wanted more students to do well in exams and hence improve
student retention. Also, by working in groups, I expected all the students to
participate more in the learning process and hence create a mutually
encouraging and helping atmosphere in class. I envisioned many small
communities of students becoming life-long friends by helping each other to
reach their educational and career goals. I also
I mainly focused on the following benchmarks created
by the ALP Team:
Cognition:
Problem Solving
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Reasoning
Transfer of Knowledge and Skills to a New Context
Social Interaction:
Teamwork
During Summer 2000, I had my Calculus I (Math 140)
students do the group-presentations to prepare the class for the exams. This
was done very informally. Other than verbal feedback and some points towards
their homework I did not give any additional incentives or instructor
evaluation of the presentation. Also, no peer evaluation (by the team itself or
groups) was done. The results were encouraging.
In Fall 2000, I implemented these semi-formally.
With the evaluation forms Fari and the department ALP Team created, I had the
students in my Beginning Algebra (Math 050) class evaluate each team and their
presentation. Also, I gave them written feedbacks on each team’s presentation
for its contents, completeness and accuracy. Results were more encouraging.
Observations
I found many similarities
and differences in students between the two classes.
·
Students
in the higher class (Math 140) were more open and willing to do these
presentations, while some of the students in the remedial class (Math 050) show
unwillingness to participate and cooperate.
·
It
was obvious from the presentations that each team in Math 140 participated more
or less equally, while in Math 050 only 2 out 4 members of each team (team
leaders) actively participated in the preparation phase of their presentation.
·
In
Math 140, the average exam scores of the team that did the presentation for
that was generally higher than that of the class. In Math 050, the average
grades of the team leaders were consistently higher than that of the class in
every exam.
·
Quality
of the presentations was better in Math 140 compared to that of Math 050.
·
The
peer evaluations by students or team members gleaned very little information on
their knowledge of the subject in Math 050. Most comments were “feel good
notes”. This may have been due to my inexperience in having students do
teamwork and my not coaching the students properly on this matter. I did not
have my students do peer evaluations in Math 140.
·
Many
of the Math 140 students are continuing with the same study-groups in their
Math 141 and Math 205 classes, while in Math 050 I see only team leaders are
continuing to study with any group.
Concerns and Comments
Time---It takes an enormous amount of time to
implement such a procedure in any class. I found myself working a lot more
hours just to write informal feedbacks on their presentations. A lot more time
will be needed to implement it formally.
Class size---The class size seems very large to do
such a task. Between 20 and 25 per class will be an ideal size, as the students
can get more personalized feedback on their work.
Motivation---Many students learned to work with the
groups and in the process improved their grades, presentation skills and
communication skills.
Retention---I noticed a better retention rate in my
remedial class. However, the distribution of grades did not change
significantly.
Conclusion
The implementation of these assessment techniques
was a wonderful experience for me. I learned many things about my teaching and
how my students learn. This definitely has helped many of my students in their
mathematics classes and other classes. I was able to find out what the students
learned prior to their tests and was able to help them better by knowing each
student’s strengths and weaknesses. I look forward to implement these in more
and more of my classes. I definitely recommend these assessment and learning
techniques to instructors of any subject. I appreciate the help and support
that I received from the Assessment Learning Team and I am looking forward to
working with the team in the coming years.
Michael
Mufson—Performing Arts
Prologue
The purpose of this project
is to develop formats for assessing student progress in the core skill of group
interaction. The students in my introduction
to theatre class use a collaborative creation process to respond to essays and
play-scripts. Each student participates
collaboratively creating two original theatre performances. The value of these projects has always been
clear to me, however, it has been difficult to assess the individual student's
contributions to the project and to apply concrete measurement to the student’s
progress.
I developed two forms to assess the student's group interaction skills (See attached). On the self- assessment form the student identifies her own contributions to the project, her strengths, her weaknesses and ranks her contributions in relation to the rest of the group. On the peer assessment form all the other group members rate various aspects the student’s participation on a 1-5 scale and write individual comments to the student. The course included five collaborative presentations. Each presentation spanned a progressively longer development time and involved a progressively more complex task.
The first difficulty I encountered was allotting the time to administer the assessment forms. The collaborative creation process is very time intensive and for the first two projects I did not administer the assessments. In retrospect I could have just done the self-evaluation on these projects.
The task for Project Three
was to create a five-minute theatre composition that captured the essence of
Oedipus and followed the Climactic Model of Theatre. For this project the class divided into five groups. The smallest group has six students and the
largest had eleven. The presentations
of these projects spanned two days.
After discussing the projects and wrapping up the unit I administered
the forms. Several students from the groups
that presented on the first day were not in attendance on the second day. For the absent students, I had them complete
the forms during subsequent classes.
Eventually I acquired a complete set of forms.
The students were excited to
give and receive input in this manner.
It took longer than I anticipated to complete the process. I had each student fill out her own
self-assessment first and then pass the peer assessment (copied on the reverse
side) to the other group members. When
the group finished filling out the peer-assessments, each student retrieved her
own form to read her peers' comments.
At the end of class I collected all the completed forms.
To my surprise, I found the
self-assessments to be much harsher than the peer assessments. This reflects the general problem of low
self-esteem among community college students.
Most of the peer comments were light, humorous and encouraging. However, in the case of those students who
missed one or more classes or did not participate fully, the comments tended to
be frank but gentle. A small percentage
of the comments were quite severe. The process for the remaining two projects
was similar to the first.
The task for Project Four
was to create a ten-minute theatre composition about a “culture different than
your own.” Each student wrote a short statement on an index card about a
“culture that fascinates” her. The
entire class engaged in a consensus process of sorting the statements into
groups based on commonalities. This
process resulted in four groups.
The final project involved creating a ten-minute
theatre composition that would utilize the theatre’s unique qualities to
reflect the students’ generational-cultural aesthetic in such a way that it
surpasses the appeal of mass media and entertainment. Each student created a visual representation (collage) of her
response to the task. The entire class engaged in a consensus process of
sorting the visual representations to determine the groups. This resulted in
four groups.
For both projects I had intended to administer the assessments at the end of class after the performances. In both cases the performances used the whole class time and I administered the forms at the beginning of the next class period. Several students were absent and this resulted in an incomplete process again.
Despite the logistical
difficulties, the assessments were very useful for the students and for my
ability to gauge the impact of the projects.
The qualities we are assessing here are difficult to quantify or observe in a statistical fashion, so I will rely on empirical data to measure the outcomes.
1.
There
was a significant shift in the quantity of comments from the first set of
assessments to the third.
|
# of comments received per form |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Total |
|
Project 1 |
14 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
34 |
|
Project 2 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
|
24 |
|
Project 3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
12 |
1 |
6 |
|
24 |
For project 1 61% of the class received fewer than 4
comments from peers.
For project 2 79 % of the class received fewer than
4 comments from peers.
For project 3 20 % of the class received fewer than
4 comments from peers.
2.
There
was also a significant improvement in the substance of the comments between the
first and third projects.
a. Some representative comments from the first
project include:
i.
Did
a good job.
ii.
You
are so great
iii.
You
did a good job putting you ideas in
iv.
Nominated
best actress in a leading role
v.
Awesome
vi.
Best
acting since Nichalson
vii.
Brilliant
viii.
Tubular
ix.
At
times I thought you were unnecessarily critical.
x.
Mike
worked hard creating our ideas but didn’t seem comfortable with his own.
b. The comments from the second project were roughly
similar to the first. Even fewer
comments of real substance.
c. Some representative comments from the third
project include:
i.
You
did a great job laying low and listening to others’ ideas. You rock.
ii.
Good
go-getter, brilliant ideas, good acting skills, over all experienced and smart.
iii.
Non-status
Quo ideas. Good insight into
immigration problems.
iv.
Very
focused on what the main idea should be.
Very easy to work with.
v.
She
missed a few of the important rehearsals.
This really hurt us. She had
lots of ideas that seemed to help the play.
vi.
When
you spoke up and gave an idea it was always good. Do it more often.
vii.
Need
to work on your problem with superiority.
Gave quality ideas and insight.
viii.
Whoa!
Freek. Show up on time will ya.
3. Below are case studies of four individual
students’ progress indicated on the assessment forms.
b.
Student A.
|
Project |
Peer Comments |
||
|
1 |
I thought you could have spoken your ideas more |
Student worked well with others and tried to keep everyone on time |
Very expressive, good job |
|
2 |
Good ideas |
|
|
|
3 |
Great ideas contributed to play. Team player |
Very easy to work with, she had loads of ideas and always positive. |
Overall good influence on our group. |
|
Project |
Self Assessment: Describe your most significant contribution |
|
1 |
:I was never distracting, always on topic and wanting to work on the project |
|
2 |
Came up with the idea for the Indians to be at the casino |
|
3 |
Showed up every day with new ideas and comments. I also brought props to use with our production. |
The data on Student A’s
forms clearly indicates an increase in contribution and in
self-confidence. Notice particularly
the shift in attitude indicated by the self-assessment. The comment for the
first project is expressed in the negative and her best claim to contribution
is “never distracting.” In the second
project she laid claim to one significant idea. By the third project she expressed pride in making daily
contributions to the project.
b.
Student B.
|
Project |
Peer Comments |
||
|
1 |
I thought that you weren’t willing to conform to others’ ideas |
At times I thought that you were unnecessarily critical |
Has wonderful ideas. Very creative. Works well with people |
|
2 |
Could be more optimistic about the outcome of the project. |
You make a believable thug |
Stop hitting people, it may become habit forming. (This refers to content of the project.) |
|
3 |
Contributed very good ideas—great guitar picks!!! |
Always a great job! |
|
|
Project |
Self Assessment: Describe your most significant contribution |
Self Assessment: Describe one occasion in the planning process on which you had to compromise |
|
1 |
Wrote the script |
Opening scene. Overall vision, they gave me most of the control. |
|
2 |
I beat Joe up |
Josh was in charge so I let him run with it. |
|
3 |
I got the coolest costume and music! Ha Ha |
Too many times to remain |
The student in this case is
working on the opposite problem from student A. By the final project he received no negative comments about his
ability to accept others’ ideas. Student A’s description of his own compromise
indicates a conscious effort to give control to others. On project 2 he simply gave control
away. On project three he engaged in the
process and was willing to compromise (although perhaps not happy about it.) I would characterize the progression in the
“contribution comments as 1. Claiming the bulk of the responsibility, 2.
Dismissing his contribution by making it into a joke, 3. Expressing pleasure in
the project even though he was not in control of the whole thing.
c.
Student C.
|
Project |
Peer Comments |
||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
Project |
Self Assessment: Describe your most significant contribution |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
Lee Chen—English as a Second Language

Introduction
During this past Spring
Semester, I was, regrettably, unable to implement my Virtual Communication
benchmarks because my online ESL 103 class (Advanced Academic Writing) was
canceled due to low enrollment. As a
result, I used my ESL 1, Level 5 class (Advanced Non-Credit ESL) as my pilot
course. Instead of applying my own
Virtual Communication benchmarks, which would have been inappropriate, I used
Michael Mufson's (Theater Arts)
Social Interaction benchmarks.
Two Team Projects
In my on-ground ESL class, I
required two team projects, one for each half of the semester. Students were
put into 5 teams of 4 to 5 members each. There were new teams formed for the
second project. I designed both
multiple-week projects as parts of my thematic units for the course in such a way
that my Level 5 students would have ample opportunity to acquire and practice
the teamwork skills subsumed under the Core Skill of Social Interaction. I planned that they would use these skills
as means to acquire English, as well as content knowledge and research
techniques.
Project #1
The first project was
entitled “A Famous First-Generation Mexican Immigrant.” Each team drew one of
the five names I provided: Salma Hayek, Ricardo Montalban, Anthony Quinn, Paul
Rodriguez, and Carlos Santana. Over a two-week period, students were to do instructor-assisted
and
self-initiated research on the Internet and/or with print materials and get
ready to make a team presentation utilizing a project display board.
The day after the project
was assigned, I gave students a two-sided form with Michael Mufson's
"Self-Assessment" form on one side and his "Peer
Assessment" on the other. The idea was for them to start paying attention
to all aspects of their own and their peers’ teamwork performance while they
worked on their team project.
Because of the complex
nature of the project, the actual student presentation date was postponed once.
On the big day, the teams took turns presenting their famous Mexican. At the
end of the class, everybody completed their Self-Assessment. They completed
their Peer Assessment the following day.
Later, I assigned a
percentage grade to each student, based on their Self- and Peer Assessments and
on my own observations. I returned the forms to the students with some low
points [CW8][LC9]highlighted. I
explained that I had pointed out those areas for them to work on and to do a
better job for their next team project.
All during the project I, of course, had supported them with profuse
positive oral feedback. I just saved
the corrective feedback till the final assessment.
Project #2
The second project was part of a thematic unit
entitled “The Brain.” I gave the new
teams suggested topics for presentation. This time I made the two assessment
forms separate instead of on a sheet back-to-back. Because of the demanding
academic nature of the topics, I gave some additional assistance to some teams
by bringing in copies of related articles and newspaper source information.
Teams settled on the following topics:
·
Can
TV harm the brain?
·
Factors
that disturb one’s state of mind
·
How
to have a healthy brain?
·
The
anatomy of the brain
·
The
corpus callosum
This project took teams much longer to prepare than
the previous one. As with the first project, I made sure that I gave some class
time for teams to work on their projects. And as with the first project, I had
students complete their assessments and assigned a percentage grade for each
student.
Lessons Learned
Prior to the semester, I had
always done some teamwork in class, but nothing had been done in such a
systematic and conscious way. I learned the following lessons thanks to the
projects and their assessments. These lessons, both good and bad, are listed in
no particular order.
·
Group
dynamics were much better, thanks to the formalized teamwork requirement.
Although the teamwork system had always been in effect in my classes--for small
group work and classroom management-- the added team presentations really
contributed to how students organized and mobilized themselves. The use of the
Mufson's Social Interaction Self- and Peer Assessment Benchmarks provided the
necessary tools for my students to become reflective learners, particularly
with regard to their teamwork skills.
·
The
team projects can be very time-consuming. I ended up changing the number of
team presentation projects from an ambitious three to two. Fortunately, because
the projects were so tied with the content learning at hand and with the four
language skills, the time was well spent. On the day of presentations, even the
audience were given some concurrent tasks to do that were focused on the
presentation content.
·
Assigning
grades based on the assessment forms can be problematic. For the first
presentation, the two-sided forms contained both the Self- and the Peer
Assessments. Students doing the Peer Assessment got to see how an assessee had
evaluated himself/herself on the other side of the form. As a result, students
tended to be more face-saving for each other than the second time around, when
they didn’t get to see others’ Self-Assessments. A common-sense approach has to
be adopted if assigning a grade is to be desired.
·
Team projects need to be related to students’
interests, needs, and comfort levels. A case in point was how no teams chose to
present on a brain researcher for their second project, presumably because they
didn’t know much about those scientists. The solution seems to lie in providing
an array of choices for the teams to pick from. Another case in point: during a
follow-up discussion, students talked passionately about more practical topics
like “Can TV harm the brain?” Again, I let my students engage in this
natural-selection process.
·
Where
to find information and how to evaluate the information found were two great
side benefits from doing the team presentation projects. In addition to the
Social Interaction skills, students honed their critical thinking skills to
some extent. This classroom assessment of teamwork skills was formative, not
summative. Even though I opted to provide a grade, I did so to encourage my
students to focus on how they can do a better job for a future team project. I
wanted them to concentrate on doing a good job working in teams and presenting
their projects. No tests resulted from these projects.
·
Most
students liked to work in teams to do such projects. I found this feeling
surfacing time and again in their journal entries and also in their
end-of-semester reflections on their last project. Here are five students’
testimonies:
Student reflections on the assessments:
Jesus Orozco: I learned with my team how to
work in a group, but the best thing that I learned is to listen to the members
of my team. I worked very hard to contribute to the last project, and I am
happy to work with my team because I learned many new things. It helps me a lot
to improve my English in many ways, listening, speaking and sometimes teaching
what I know.
Renata Torres: … I feel good because I can
see that I can work well with other people that think differently than me.
Another thing that I’ve learned thanks to my self-assessment is that I need to
trust my team members and share responsibilities.
Rita Huang: I learned how to work with
classmates and talk about self-planning to do a good job.
Gabriela Gomez: Everybody has a different
skill…
Laura Lemus: … I gave my knowledge about the
brain to my classmates, and they accepted it without problems.
Cynthia Watson—English as a Second Language
It
is with great sadness that we note that Cynthia died before completing her
final report. She was a dear friend and
a wonderful colleague and her spirit and energy remain a permanent contribution
to the students of Palomar College and the work of the ALP Team.