1 / 16

Datta Kaur Khalsa, Ph.D., Director of Assessment, Graduate School Education Department

Assessing student learning at the Graduate Level: Four Core Areas through a Common Activity A Pilot Study. 2012 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis October 30, 2012. Datta Kaur Khalsa, Ph.D., Director of Assessment, Graduate School Education Department

keith
Download Presentation

Datta Kaur Khalsa, Ph.D., Director of Assessment, Graduate School Education Department

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing student learning at the Graduate Level: Four Core Areas through a Common ActivityA Pilot Study 2012 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis October 30, 2012 Datta Kaur Khalsa, Ph.D., Director of Assessment, Graduate School Education Department Yan Zhang Cooksey, Ph.D. Director, Learning Outcomes Assessment, Graduate School Dean’s Office Kathryn Klose, Ph.D., Associate Chair & Director, Graduate School Finance Management & Accounting University of Maryland University College

  2. Course Outcomes UMUC’s Levels of Assessment Program Objectives Undergraduate and Graduate School Goals Institutional Outcomes

  3. UMUC’s Assessment Goal

  4. Current Model: 3-3-3 Model

  5. Current Assessment Model 3-3-3 Model

  6. Current Model: 3-3-3 Model

  7. C2 Model: Common activity & Combined rubric

  8. Compare 3-3-3 Model to (new)C2 Model

  9. Phase I (C2)Pilot Study One Common Activity 3 Graduate Programs 4 SLEs with One Rubric Norming Hired Raters =

  10. Phase I Norming Timeline

  11. Phase II Pilot Study Apply Lessons Learned Same Common Activity Same Papers Condensed Rubric Norming with Condensed Rubric Retrained Raters =

  12. Phase II Results – Acceptable ICC Acceptable Level of Inter-rater Reliability: 0.7* *Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Average Measures of ICC-Phase I & II

  13. Met Goals – Simplification! • Shifted the faculty grading workload to external, trained raters, 2. Incorporated training and norming sessions to improve rubric consistency and use, 3. Eliminated assignment disparities by employing one common activity across the Graduate School, and 4. Provided tighter alignment between the assignment and rubric.

  14. Future Rating Procedure Phase III More Programs Graduate School-Wide Implementation

  15. Helpful for you? Yan Zhang Cooksey, Ph.D. yan.cooksey@umuc.edu Datta Kaur Khalsa, Ph.D. dattakaur.khalsa@umuc.edu Paper to be published in: Research and Practice in Assessment, Winter 2012 http://www.rpajournal.com (Release date is Friday, November 16th)

  16. References Khan, R., Khalsa, D.K., Klose, K., & Cooksey, Y.Z. (2012, Winter). Assessing Graduate Student Learning in Four Competencies: Use of a Common Assignment and a Combined Rubric (in press). Research & Practice in Assessment. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

More Related