Learning Assessment and É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core
Learning Assessment and É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core
Learning Assessment and É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Committee
The LARC Committee, which merges the previous É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core and Learning Outcomes & Assessment committees, was created in Spring 2020. It is currently chaired by Grace Fillenwarth.
Here are some quick links to LARC related content:
Complete Statement of Current É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Policy
Guidance for creating a É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT course
Committee Charge
The Learning Assessment & É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core (LARC) Committee has the following responsibilities:
- Ongoing review of É«ÀÇÉçÇø’s assessment principles and practices.
- Develop and approve changes to É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core policy. (Significant changes require Senate approval.)
- Review and approve new course assessment plans, including É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, and LIT assessment. (This review must be completed as part of the curriculum proposal process before a course receives a É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT course attribute.)
- Review and approve proposed changes to course assessment plans. (This does not require a curriulum proposal. Simply contact the chair via email to begin the process.)
- Communicate regularly with departments regarding É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core policy, the status of É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core courses, and assessment requirements.
- Manage the É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core program in coordination with the Director of Assessment (e.g., maintain a shared database, systematic review and analysis of assessment data).
- Periodic review of existing course assessment plans to ensure that they remain relevant and follow best practices in assessment.
- Revoke the É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT attributes from a course if the department fails to perform and report on the approved student assessments.
- Work with departments on program assessment, including the optional integration of program assessment with É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, and LIT course assessment plans.
- Review student appeals of transfer credit to fulfill É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT requirements.
- Revise existing É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core learning outcomes (or add new ones) as needed.
About É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core
É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core is the general education model at É«ÀÇÉçÇø that began running in Fall 2018. Students complete course requirements in six É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core literacies: Artistic, Communicative, Global, Humanistic, Quantitative and Scientific. Student learning is assessed based on a set of outcomes for each literacy.
É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Updates (and a Potted History)
- New WI proposal questionnaire approved by the Senate.
- Resolution on WI Transfer Credit policy approved by the Senate [Nov 19, 2021]
- Start of Fall 2021 set as the date on which incoming transfer students will begin following the É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core requirements [see the full Senate resolution]
- Resolution establishing the review responsibilities of the Senate Curriculum and LARC Committees for É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, and LIT courses [approved by the Senate Nov. 20, 2020]
- Plan for the future of WI and LIT courses [approved by the Senate Nov. 20, 2020]
- New LARC Committee replaces the existing É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core and Learning Outcomes & Assessment Committees [Fall 2020]
- New É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Transfer Credit Policy approved [April 24, 2020]
- New online alternative to Public Speaking developed [April 24, 2020, link includes FAQ]
- Full rewrite of the É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core learning outcomes [Spring 2020, implementation completed in Fall 2021]
- Amended É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core policy approved [a full rewrite of É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core policy, Spring 2019]
- Initial Implementation of É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core [Fall 2018, initially for first-year, native É«ÀÇÉçÇø Students]
- Quasi-curricular proposal creating the É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Committee and model approved [Fall 2015; note: this policy document is fully superseded by the Amended É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core policy above]
- (several years of contentious debates about the future of general education at É«ÀÇÉçÇø)
- Original É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Literacies and outcomes approved [Fall 2011; superseded by the new outcomes approved above]
- Start of the initiative to reform general education at É«ÀÇÉçÇø [Fall 2010]
A complete and current summary of É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core policy is available here.
How to Create a É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT Course
To create a new É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT course - or to add one of these attributes to an existing course - begin by creating either a new course or change to existing course proposal. (See this Senate Curriculum Committee page for more information on how to do this.) A course assessment document must be completed and attached to the proposal under the "additional supporting documentation" section. This document should follow the official template, which ensures that all information required for LARC's review is included. This file should be submitted—as an editable Word Document, not a PDF. Here is a blank assessment template, which includes language and formats for the various types of courses for which one of these documents might be required. Any questions about the writing of these assessments should be emailed to the chair of the LARC committee, Grace Fillenwarth. It is recommended that you submit a draft assessment document to the chair for preliminary review in order to ensure a smoother approval process.
Assessment Plan Recommendations
The assessment plan review process is meant to be collaborative, and the LARC Committee's goal is to help your department develop the best possible plan for effectively and meaningfully assessing your É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, or LIT course. You are welcome to send ideas, drafts, questions, etc. to the LARC Committee chair, Grace Fillenwarth, ahead of your official submission.
Departments are urged to consult our sample assessment plan, which includes explanatory comments and tips for designing your own plan. Also available is a list of É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Outcomes for each Literacy (rewritten in Spring 2020).
For those WI or LIT courses that also satisfy a É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core literacy requirement, we urge departments to do what they can to reduce the assessment burden for instructors. Whenever possible, we recommend that they develop assignments that can do double-duty: being used for both É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core and WI / LIT assessment. For instance, a WI and Global literacy course might create an essay assignment with some rubric dimensions linked to a Global outcome, and other rubric dimensions linked to one of the Communicative outcomes designated for WI use. Just by entering the scores for this one assignment, faculty would be completing both the Global literacy and WI assessments.
All approved assessments (É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core, WI, and LIT) should be included together, for ease of use, in a single course assessment plan. Departments using the course for program assessment are encouraged to include this in the course plan as well.
Options for WI Assessment
Assessment for WI courses should involve a major, multi-stage writing project. Because every instructor teaching the course will do the same assessment, this requirement could potentially constrain how they teach the course. Here are two options for dealing with this issue.
- Common Writing Project:
In some courses, it might make sense for every instructor to use the same writing project for assessment—either because there are not very many sections or because the course is fairly standardized in terms of content. For this option, departments would include the specific assignment in the course assessment plan, along with a rubric for the assignment that aligns with one of the WI-approved outcomes. An example of this approach is provided in the sample assessment plan (above). - Generic Project and Assessment Rubric:
In other courses, it may not be feasible to use the same writing project in every section of the course. Here, departments would instead provide a general description of the project (e.g., a term paper of a certain length, meeting certain general requirements). The project would then be assessed using a generic rubric based on one of the four WI-approved outcomes. Here are these four generic rubrics.
Generic WI Rubric #1: Context, Audience and Purpose: Students can communicate in ways that are sensitive to context, audience and purpose.
|
Proficient |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Developmental |
Audience |
The writer’s choices reveal a comprehensive understanding of their audience’s knowledge, preferences, assumptions and dispositions. |
The writer’s choices reveal an incomplete understanding of their audience’s knowledge, preferences, assumptions and dispositions. |
The writer’s choices reveal a flawed understanding of their audience’s knowledge, preferences, assumptions and dispositions. |
It is not clear the writer made choices with respect to their audience. |
Purpose |
The purpose of the text is clear and thoroughly executed throughout the text. |
The purpose of the text is clear but inconsistently executed in the text. |
The purpose of the text is indistinct. |
There is no discernable purpose of the text. |
Context |
The text works well within the broader context of the discipline or genre. |
There is some contextual dissonance between the text and the discipline or genre. |
The text does not work within the broader context of the discipline or genre. |
There is no discernable context in which the text would work. |
Generic WI Rubric #2: Conventions: Students can navigate the conventions of various communities, genres, media and modes.
|
Proficient |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Developmental |
Appropriate Conventions |
The writer follows conventions that are appropriate for the community, genre, media and mode. |
The writer inconsistently follows conventions that are appropriate for the community, genre, media and mode |
The writer follows conventions that are inappropriate for the community, genre, media and mode. |
The writer follows conventions very inconsistently with no discernable rationale. |
Effective Use of Conventions |
The writer’s use of conventions (possibly including artful departure from those conventions) contributes to the text’s effectiveness. |
The writer’s inconsistent or weak use of conventions fails to contribute to the text's effectiveness. |
The writer’s use of conventions subverts the text’s effectiveness. |
The writer uses conventions very inconsistently with no discernable rationale. |
Generic WI Rubric #3: Analysis and Critique: Students can employ analytical and critical skills in their own communications and in their evaluation of others’ communications.
|
Proficient |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Developmental |
Analysis |
The writer’s analysis successfully clarifies something that is otherwise challenging to comprehend. |
The writer’s analysis somewhat clarifies something that is otherwise challenging to comprehend. |
The writer attempts to clarify something that is otherwise challenging to comprehend. |
There is no evidence that the writer is attempting to clarify something that is challenging to comprehend. |
Critique |
The writer’s critique is insightful and well argued. |
There are aspects of the writer’s critique that are insightful and well argued |
The writer’s critique is simplistic or insufficiently argued. |
There is no evidence of a critique. |
Generic WI Rubric #4: Sources: Students can select credible, authoritative sources and integrate relevant information into their communications.
|
Proficient |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Developmental |
Credible and Authoritative |
All sources the writer cites are credible and from authorities on the subject. | Most sources the writer cites are credible and from authorities on the subject. | Few sources the writer cites are credible and from authorities on the subject. | The author does not cite credible sources from authorities on the subject. |
Integration |
All sources are well-integrated and support the purpose of the writer’s text. | Most sources are well-integrated and support the purpose of the writer’s text. | Sources are not well-integrated or they fail to adequately support the purpose of the writer’s text. | There is no evidence the writer attempted to integrate sources or use them to support the purpose of the text. |
Committee Members - Academic Year 23/24
Ben Daniels | Chair |
Joel Rudin | Faculty, College of Business |
Grace Fillenwarth | Faculty, College of Communication & Creative Arts |
Amy Accardo | Faculty, College of Education |
Kevin Dahm | Faculty, College of Engineering |
Ed Kazarian | Faculty, College of Humanities & Social Sciences |
Tony Hostetter | Faculty, College of Performing Arts |
Matt Travis | Faculty, College of Science & Mathematics |
Faculty, School of Earth & Environment | |
Jenny Longo | Faculty, School of Nursing & Health Professions |
Rui Shi | Additional Faculty Member |
Angela Ruckdeschel | Additional Faculty Member |
Jeremy Glazer | Additional Faculty Member |
Samantha Kennedy | Librarian |
Cherly Turley | AFT Representative |
Christine Larsen-Britt | Professional Staff Advisor |
Patrick Massaro | Professional Staff Advisor |
Jeff Bonfield | Director of Assessment (non-voting member) |
Christine Mazza | Registrar's Office (non-voting member) |
End of Year Reports
Report for:
Reports of the previous É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Committee (superseded by the LARC Committee):
- É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Annual Report 19-20
- É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Annual Report 18-19
- É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Annual Report 17-18
- É«ÀÇÉçÇø Core Annual Report 16-17
Reports of the previous Learning Outcomes & Assessment Committee (superseded by the LARC Committee):