View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evaluating First Year Seminar Student Success by Developing a Signature Assignment: A Case Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluating First Year Seminar Student Success by Developing a Signature Assignment: A Case Study
Language: English
Authors: Parsh, Bridget, Merrifield, Emily, Migliaccio, Todd, Munoz, Rheena
Source: College Teaching. 2021 69(1):20-31.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: First Year Seminars, Student Evaluation, Academic Achievement, Assignments, Student Experience, Scoring Rubrics, Lifelong Learning, Interpersonal Competence, Cultural Awareness, Information Literacy
DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2020.1794779
ISSN: 8756-7555
Abstract: First Year Seminars have been found to positively impact student experience and retention in universities, especially in large-outcome measures such as grade point average, retention rates, and ultimately, graduation rates. Common learning experiences, a high-impact practice, such as course readings, a syllabus template, and discussion topics help to positively impact student learning. To evaluate authentic student learning, a campus First Year Experience rubric and Signature Assignment (SA) were developed for a more comprehensive assessment. With the integration of the SA into the course, assessment was refined through a multi-year process. Designed around key learning outcomes, the SA provides instructor and disciplinary flexibility and may serve as a potential model for other institutions looking to standardize the learning outcome evaluation across courses.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1285115
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQr--xElp3ifp9xKtWcMeFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMOWBNHb0R-bjVZhnwIBEICBm5dTAUUPnmn4_GIK57-dRn3zyXXHZEANLfS-F81DdAINVdTsnvWHKfuJ3hT-i7P8ljMw3iexX3dBPAvcZHptGGy6YvwCqtjMUyFDCreEfcXLZLX-371BmgnE1BJ6YGcRyXGrpnSejcId_N_vDK2lrCaYYKdG-80SnkrjrTUx6RCAo9ww3uyCxhwJM0qnzO1kDz_U_03EDSMgVHin
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0148721476;cte01jan.21;2021Feb17.03:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0148721476-1">Evaluating first year seminar student success by developing a signature assignment: A case study </title> <p>First Year Seminars have been found to positively impact student experience and retention in universities, especially in large-outcome measures such as grade point average, retention rates, and ultimately, graduation rates. Common learning experiences, a high-impact practice, such as course readings, a syllabus template, and discussion topics help to positively impact student learning. To evaluate authentic student learning, a campus First Year Experience rubric and Signature Assignment (SA) were developed for a more comprehensive assessment. With the integration of the SA into the course, assessment was refined through a multi-year process. Designed around key learning outcomes, the SA provides instructor and disciplinary flexibility and may serve as a potential model for other institutions looking to standardize the learning outcome evaluation across courses.</p> <p>Keywords: First year experience; signature assignment; student learning outcomes</p> <p>First Year Seminars (FYS) have been found to positively impact student experience and retention in universities. Common learning experiences, a High Impact Practice (AAC&U, 2015), such as course readings, syllabus template, and discussion topics help to positively impact student learning. Although much of the research on the effectiveness of FYS rely on data such as retention, grade point averages, and graduation rates, some are recognizing the need for a focus on actual student-learning objectives (Kinzie [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]; Smith, Goldfine, and Windham [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]). Changing student demographics and a stronger push for the accountability of student learning means it is necessary to take another look at the methods being used to assess first-year success (Reason and Gansemer-Topf [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]). Specifically addressing outcomes including writing, information literacy, problem solving, and intercultural understanding would help meet increasing accreditation demands that require more accountability for student learning, evidence of effectiveness, and detail into what interventions are working (Kinzie [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]; Reason and Gansemer-Topf [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another way researchers are identifying a reason to go beyond the standard metrics is in the attempt of authentic assessment and recognizing the benefit of a more complex definition of success. Authenticity in assessment evaluates student learning based on evidence that represents an intentional, rather than arbitrary, timespan (Buyarski and Landis [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>], p. 50). According to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), programs with highly developed learning outcomes are those where faculty have agreed on explicit criteria for assessing students' level of mastery for each outcome (WASC [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>]). It is also important to ensure that teaching is directly aligned with the outcomes being assessed. By developing assignments based on clear learning outcomes, assessment can be integrated into the ongoing work of faculty and students (Kuh et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>], p. 35). Projects and assignments that students engage with over periods of time (whether throughout the semester or even across their college career) offer a more meaningful way to assess their learning, especially outcomes that are related to success in subsequent coursework, not to mention the student's field or career of choice. Rather than a one-time test of student work, faculty appreciate assessment evidence that include locating information, evaluating sources, understanding various viewpoints and synthesizing information (Banta et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>], p. 6).</p> <p>Traditionally, FYS support the success of incoming first year students by combining writing, research, and active discussion among a small group of students (Forrester, Hutson, and To [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]). Many first-time college students struggle with the skills to process information, manage time challenges, and maintain effective study habits, resulting in failure during the important first semester (Steiner [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]). In order for first-year students to develop habits for success, they must learn and commit to practice good metacognitive skills for studying, time management, and self-reflection, not only to succeed in college, but in the workplace as well (Steiner [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]; Baxter Magolda [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]; Jensen, Mattheis, and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>This paper conveys a case study of an iterative process through which we designed a more effective and impactful way of educating students while also measuring their success in First Year Seminars from departments across the university. In an effort to accomplish this, we progressively integrated more effective tools, largely related to assessment, including a common rubric, a signature assignment, and a systematic process for evaluating data that limited impact on faculty workload, not to mention staff workload, while simultaneously evaluating student success. In doing so, we also found that we were positively influencing the focus of educators and thus the experiences of students with limited negative response by faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-2">Development of a campus-wide first-year experience rubric</hd> <p>At our large, public university, more than 80 department-based sections of First Year Seminars (FYS) are offered as an optional, general education course for all incoming first time college students. Faculty teaching these courses utilize a common syllabus, including identical course descriptions and student-learning outcomes, but have flexibility in assignment design and how the outcomes are achieved. To identify common learning outcomes for all first-time college students on campus, a university-wide First Year Experience (FYE) committee developed the First Year Experience Rubric (Table 1), which includes four areas based on the First Year Value Rubric of the Association of American Colleges and Universities: lifelong learning, information literacy, intercultural competence, and integrative thinking (AAC&U [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]; Rhodes [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]). Members of the committee include the Director of First Year Experience, the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Director of Academic Advising, Residence Life staff, faculty from the Equal Opportunity Program, Athletics staff, Library faculty, First Year Seminar faculty, and others who work with first-time college students on campus. Over the course of 18 months, the committee adapted the AAC&U Value Rubric by adjusting the achievement spectrum for first year students, combining the outcomes that reflected the highest priorities, and adapting descriptors to more accurately capture FYE-specific goals. During this time, drafts were sent to key First Year Seminar faculty for feedback. This crucial step also led to buy-in on the project from faculty invested in the First Year Experience Program. The rubric was developed to guide curriculum development and to assess student learning based on assignments completed in the course. The First Year Experience Committee determined 2.0 to be an acceptable threshold for the students in their first or second semester of their collegiate life.</p> <p>Table 1. FYE rubric.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>High–Intermediate</td><td>Low–Intermediate</td><td>Emerging</td><td>Novice</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Lifelong Learning</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>"all purposeful learning activity, undertaken on an ongoing basis with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competence"</td><td>Sometimes <bold>contributes rich insights</bold> into complex topics; developing confidence in personal knowledge base and capacity to learn; reflects on the role of accumulated effort in building long–term knowledge</td><td><bold>Deeper exploration</bold> of a variety of topics with a sustained record of contributions to self and peers; learning processes may be formulaic and/or tentative</td><td><bold>Sustained focus</bold> on several explorations showing initiative in the collaborative; occasional insights and contributions to self and peers, moving beyond basic facts; independent interests and focuses appearing</td><td><bold>Superficial exploration</bold> of one or more topics related to the theme of the learning collaborative; attention to basic facts; depends on close guidance</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Integrative Thinking</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>"...an understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and co–curriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus..."</td><td>D<bold>efends one's choice of a major and a discipline with evidence</bold> of self–understanding, disciplinary understanding, interdisciplinary similarities and differences, and realistic (i.e., career), worthwhile goal direction</td><td><bold>Articulates one'sown long– term personal and academic learning goals</bold>; makes a personal map or action plan to improve or grow in goal areas; searches for ways to apply understandings across disciplines</td><td><bold>Beginning to identify self as a learner</bold> with personal and academic experiences; beginning to adapt knowledge, concepts, and tools across disciplines; uses a variety of media and forms to convey meaning</td><td><bold>Rarely connects personal experiences</bold> to content studied formally in the classroom or in aninformalco–curricular experience; stays within the confines of assignments and disciplines</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Intercultural Competence</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>"...a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts." (Bennett <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2008</xref>)</td><td><bold>Beginning to analyze salient identities and power relations; explores intercultural issues</bold> seeking similarities between differing cultural contexts; sometimes open to entering unknown or unplanned cultural interactions and deepens insight into behaviors from them</td><td><bold>Identifies one's own cultural norms and shows basic knowledge of other cultural perspectives</bold>; sometimes able to complete intercultural tasks with general instructions</td><td><bold>Dawning awareness of one's own cultural norms and possible differences with others</bold>; seeks clarity about the definition of culture as it relates to intercultural interactions; interested in different perspectives on culture</td><td><bold>Surface, vague, or inaccurate conceptofculture</bold>;over– relies on instructions to complete intercultural tasks assigned in the collaborative; uncomfortable or resistant or uninterested in cultural frame shifting</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Information Literacy</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>"...to know when there is a need for information, to be able to identify, locate, evaluate, and effectively and responsibly use and share that information for the problem at hand..."</td><td><bold>Concerned with evaluating sources for accuracy, authority, potential bias, currency,</bold> completeness, relevance; <bold>clear understanding of and intolerance for plagiarism</bold>; uses basic storage tools to manage large amounts of information</td><td><bold>Readily identifies research questions</bold> important to the course theme; <bold>uses simple search strategies effectively; often locates relevant sources of information</bold>; beginning to question the reliability and validity of sources</td><td><bold>Beginning to clarify important research questions related to the course theme</bold>; trying to determine key concepts and search terms with guidance; relies less and less on directed quoted material and more on own words; beginning to value and practice documentation</td><td><bold>Vague or prescribed definitions of research questions</bold> important to a course theme, topic, or issue; rarely identifies needed information; struggles with problems evaluating, connecting, and integrating information from sources</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Next, we obtained permission to study from the campus Institutional Review Board Committee to conduct research on first year students' success within the FYE program, based on their demonstration of the learning outcomes of the First Year Experience Rubric in first year seminar assignments.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-3">Rubric use</hd> <p>Once the committee had established the use of the rubric to assess student learning, faculty who teach FYS were notified during the annual pre-semester fall FYE faculty convocation and, subsequently, were reminded by emails that they needed to identify an assignment, or assignments, to represent the evaluation of the four rubric areas. To justify any subsequent changes to the curriculum, we used a scientific process for gathering and evaluating the data, as that was key to obtaining faculty buy-in.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-4">Sample</hd> <p>To gather samples from the 40–70 course FYS sections (depending on the year), we established a process in Year One that was based on random selecting, in which we randomly selected papers from each section of the course. Each year, using an online random number generator, out of 30 (the most students in any given section), five numbers were generated that represented the five students whose assignments were submitted from each section (for example, for Year Two, faculty were asked to submit the 4th, 13th, 15th, 23rd, and 25th student on their class roster). If a section had fewer than the identified random number (e.g., in Year Two, if a section only held 22 students), then faculty would choose student #2, and if another student was needed for student 23, the 7<sups>th</sups> student would be chosen. These two additional sample numbers were also randomly chosen prior to contacting faculty, as we noted the range of students in sections would create this complication. From these papers, we randomly selected papers to be reviewed by the FYE Committee, which was based on the number of reviewers available to evaluate during a given year. Reviewers were solicited from FYS faculty via newsletter. First, the reviewers for a given year met to norm the papers by evaluating two papers, discussing variances, and agreeing upon a standard for each score. Papers were then randomly distributed among reviewers, with each paper being reviewed twice. If there was disagreement between the two reviewers over the score of a paper (more than 3-point difference across the total rubric score of a paper, which is on a 16 point scale), it would be evaluated by a third reviewer, who would determine the final score. Less than 7% of the papers required a third evaluator, showing a high level of inter-rater reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-5">Year one: Measuring integration, with no signature assignment</hd> <p>While each year followed a very similar methodology for sampling, each subsequent year had modifications introduced to improve the process. During the first year, no common assignment existed across the entire program. Therefore, faculty were asked to choose an assignment from their course that addressed the four key areas identified in the FYE rubric (this expectation was identified following the creation of the rubric, as explained above), and 59 papers were evaluated using the random sampling process discussed previously. This year was to help establish a baseline for analyzing student success in FYS.</p> <p>Still, the FYE Committee experienced challenges with evaluating student success across various types of assignments. While the FYE Rubric provided the outcomes that evaluators were to grade against, it was evident that the process would be improved if all courses were to submit a consistent assignment that addressed the outcomes, rather than several assignments of various types that tried to do the same, but in different ways. Another factor was high faculty turnover in FYS. As this is a lower division introductory course, certain departments, such as science, frequently adjust faculty assignments late. This results in many new FYS faculty, whether tenured or adjunct, each semester. In addition to providing a consistent experience for students, development of one assignment would allow for a standard method of assessing student learning outcomes. It was decided that the Committee would create a Signature Assignment (SA), and develop it from integrated best practices from the FYS courses.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-6">Development of the signature assignment</hd> <p>Development of an SA for FYS needed to be effective for first year students, work across disciplines, be flexible for faculty to integrate into their course, and provide the ability to assess student learning outcomes. To more effectively assess FYS student learning outcomes (See Table 2), the Director of First Year Experience, the Program Assessment Coordinator, the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and the campus Undergraduate Experience Librarian designed the First Year Experience SA (See Table 3), a developmental project that students engage with over the course of the semester. Combining all four elements of the FYE Rubric, the SA needed to include traditional first-year college topics such as information literacy, academic writing, perseverance, and career pathways as well as high-impact practices such as collaboration, diversity, and common intellectual experiences (Sholy and Zeenny [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; Donham [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]; AAC&U, 2015).</p> <p>Table 2. First Year Seminar: Student-learning outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>First Year Seminar</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. The student will have an understanding of the ideas and values related to education, which will include: The relationship of education to personal development The significance of the teaching and learning process The meaning of higher education as it relates to society </td></tr><tr><td>2. The student will actively demonstrate intellectual skills for lifelong learning by: Utilizing academic skills (e.g. speaking, writing, note-taking, study skills, time management) Taking responsibility for his/her own education and development Demonstrating academic honesty, including an understanding/intolerance of plagiarism Reading, writing, reflecting, and discussing course topics to demonstrate integrative thinking</td></tr><tr><td>3. The student will develop skills to identify, locate, evaluate, and effectively and responsibly use information </td></tr><tr><td>4. The student will demonstrate an understanding of self-development in physiological, psychological, and social contexts</td></tr><tr><td>5. Students will gain an understanding of their own cultural norms and begin to explore intercultural issues and to support the diverse nature of society and the university </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Signature assignment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Signature Assignment</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1. Discuss discipline/career/major with professional/faculty member</td></tr><tr><td>2. Identify issues about diversity within their discipline/career/major</td></tr><tr><td>3. Identify one professional and one popular source for information about the possible discipline/career/major</td></tr><tr><td>4. Compare and contrast two sources for information about the possible discipline/career/major</td></tr><tr><td>5. Reflect on information from activities in an essay</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To determine the content of the new SA, all FYS syllabi were reviewed for current student assignments. Many courses included goal reflection assignments, interviews with professionals or faculty related to the major, and journaling. In order to increase faculty implementation of the SA, we aimed to develop an assignment that would work in a wide variety of disciplines. We also kept the First Year Seminar faculty informed of the progress and encouraged them to provide input and suggestions via a monthly newsletter. The campus Undergraduate Experience Librarian was highly involved in the development of the assignment, as courses that include collaboration with librarians (in instruction and assignment design) are ones where students perform higher in information literacy outcomes (Lowe et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The SA was then drafted and sent to various faculty, librarians, and staff from the campus's Services to Students with Disabilities office, the Career Center, and academic department chairs for feedback. Next, four open workshops were held to solicit further faculty input. These sessions provided an opportunity to share the assignment and purpose with faculty while making them aware of the pending course requirement. With suggestions taken into account, the final version was shared with all FYS faculty for a final review (See Table 2).The assignment and its purpose was then presented at the annual pre-semester fall FYE faculty convocation and added to a shared learning management system site for FYS faculty.</p> <p>The assignment is scaffolded and includes three smaller assignments allowing faculty to assign them separately or as one assignment (See Table 3). Initially (Year Two), the assignment was offered as optional to FYS faculty. The suggested value of the assignment was 20% of the overall grade in the course, but faculty had the option to adjust this. Next, the findings of the first analysis increased faculty bu- in by showing the difficulties of evaluating a variety of assignments. Finally, for year two, faculty were given the option of using it as we piloted its use.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-7">Year two: Evaluating with mixed assignments</hd> <p>In the second year, during which 69 papers were reviewed, the focus was on evaluating the usefulness of the SA,. It was optional for faculty to use at this point, so both the SA and other various assignments were used in the analysis. To accomplish this, reviewers evaluated work from sections that had fully implemented the SA, had implemented only part of the SA, and had not implemented the SA. Similar to the first-year review, for sections that did not use the SA, faculty identified assignments that addressed the four areas of the rubric and submitted student work from these assignments using the same random sampling process in Year One.</p> <p>The data analysis was problematic because of the limitation with the alternative assignments thoroughly and clearly reflecting each of the rubric areas. Reviewers further noted that the papers from the SA directly reflected an engagement with key components of the rubric, which made them easier to evaluate. They noticed that the engagement with each area seemed to be more diverse, and the students seemed to be drawing from discussions that occurred throughout the class rather than simply offering rote answers. Simply, the faculty, with focusing on the SA as they developed the class, which had been presented to the faculty in conjunction with the rubric, appeared to implement and integrate these ideas into their lessons.</p> <p>Since there were limitations with the analysis, as noted above, the data is not as impactful, especially since the quasi-experimental design was limited by which faculty self-selected to use or not use the SA. However, there were still some findings that were used to show the faculty the potential utility of the SA in FYS, which was a general positive trend for four areas evaluated by the rubric. Two of the areas (Lifelong Learning and Integrated Learning) only reflected a slightly higher representation of the scores (see Chart 1 and 2 below).</p> <p>While both charts display that there is a lot of overlap of the student scores, the average and higher range for those sections that fully implemented SA (Full SA) were greater.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 1. Lifelong Learning Rubric Scores</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 2. Integrated Learning Rubric Scores</p> <p>The other two areas of the rubric highlighted some greater disparities between sections that fully implemented SA and those that did not. For intercultural competence (see Chart 3 below), again, there is much overlap, but as can be noted, students in classes that utilized the full SA had a greater capacity for success (score of "4"), while the highest score for students in non-SA courses was 2.75.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 3. Intercultural Competence Rubric Scores</p> <p>The fourth area, information literacy, as shown in Chart 4 below, shows that students in classes that fully implemented the SA displayed greater levels of success.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 4. Information Literacy Rubric Scores</p> <p>Although there was the inability to claim statistical differences with the data, the difficulties of evaluating the non-SA assignments and the positive trends shown in student scores led to the FYE Committee deciding to move ahead with establishing the SA in all sections of FYS. While the findings above could not be discussed in terms of significance, showing even minor trends concerning the differences in student scores comparing sections of FYS that both fully used and did not use SA at all, resulted in greater support from faculty, with limited pushback on the implementation of the assignment into all courses in Year Three. Results from this analysis were presented to FYS faculty at an annual spring FYE teaching symposium and via newsletter. Again faculty were encouraged to provide feedback or voice concerns about implementation of the SA for the following semester.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-8">Year three: Evaluating with mandatory signature assignment</hd> <p>In Year Three, the FYE Director informed faculty that the FYE SA was mandatory to assign for all FYS course sections throughout multiple academic departments. The syllabus template included the learning outcomes for the FYS course and the SA. The FYE Director reviewed the expectations of the mandatory assignment with all new faculty. All FYE faculty (returners and new faculty) were also reminded in the weekly FYE Newsletter, at the annual faculty convocation, and at the monthly campus FYE Committee meetings that the SA was mandatory. The FYE Director met individually with new FYS faculty, and continuing faculty, about course requirements. Two workshops were held before the fall semester where faculty could share how they implemented the assignment. These workshops allowed faculty to make connections and collaborate across disciplines. Each instructor had discretion on how to apply the assignment (See Appendix A–C for examples). In many cases, the SA was assigned in three parts: the interview, research, and reflection (See Table 3). Overall, faculty were positive about the requirement and the need for a common assignment to assess student learning.</p> <p>In the third year, in which 75 papers were reviewed, a process was implemented that made the methodology more streamlined and efficient. The papers were gathered using a learning management system to simplify the collection process. Faculty submitted the designated student assignments into the LMS based on the random sampling numbers. All 62 faculty were assigned as students in one LMS course. In the LMS course, there were five folders titled Assignment 1, Assignment 2, etc. Faculty were directed to place one sample assignment in each folder. Once the assignments were entered, the reviewers began their evaluations based on the FYE Rubric. The reviewers were give three weeks to evaluate assignments using the guidelines from year 1.</p> <p>While the overall findings were not consistently that all factors were significantly greater over the years, what was important to note to faculty was that there was a general trend upwards when the SA was utilized more consistently (see Charts 5–8 below).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 5. Lifelong Learning</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 6. Information Literacy</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 7. Intercultural Competency</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Chart 8. Integrated Learning</p> <p>In each of the two areas of the rubric displayed in Charts 5–6 below, there is a clear upward trend of there being more SA integrated into sections of the course.</p> <p>Both Lifelong Learning and Information Literacy highlight that as the SA was utilized by more sections of FYS, and there was greater success by students in these sections.</p> <p>Additionally, Intercultural Competence section revealed higher success rates of students when SA is used more consistently across sections of FYS (Chart 7).</p> <p>Furthermore, for each of the three areas of the rubric discussed above, they each displayed the highest average scores for students when the SA was fully implemented. This was important to convey to faculty who desired evidence to make changes to the program.</p> <p>Integrated Learning was not as consistently positive, almost displaying significant overlap across each year (Chart 8).</p> <p>While not showing clearly that SA is more impactful on student success, this is an important part of the evaluation process and of why the SA is important. When an issue arises while using SA, such as students consistently not performing well in an outcome like intercultural competence or there is no development and/or growth in student success, as displayed for integrative learning, there is some level of clarity that it is not the measurement tool and/or rubric that is impacting the evaluation. This could not be said prior to the implementation of SA, much less the standard FYE rubric. With a clear alignment of the assignment and the rubric, it becomes easier to focus on external factors concerning student learning. This allows for a much more effective process for evaluating and changing (if needed) FYS to be more effective for student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-9">Discussion</hd> <p>Overall, it was found that the use of the Signature Assignment had a significant impact on the ability to assess student learning outcomes in First Year Seminars,</p> <p>While better-structured assessment alone is important, what was conveyed continually by the evaluators was that when each of the FYE Rubric areas were addressed within the SA, it was in greater depth than in the alternative assignments. Essentially, the introduction of the SA into the course appeared to establish a clearer introduction of the material for the faculty members, which helped them not only to integrate the material into the class but to have a more focused discussion that addressed these different areas.</p> <p>Implementation the SA proved a more efficient way to assess student learning outcomes by providing a standard assignment across a variety FYS courses. Along with the difficulty of assessing the wide variety of assignments in Year One, the reviewers identified that non-SA assignments did not appear to emphasize all of the learning outcome areas from the rubric. There was inconsistency in the ways that the non-SA assignments addressed the outcomes, and in many cases it was found that none of the outcomes appeared to be addressed. Many assignments pulled from non-SA courses did not clearly offer students an opportunity to display one or more of the key outcomes, and this limited the ability to evaluate student success in these areas. Further research would need to be done to confirm this.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-10">Conclusion</hd> <p>While there appears to be a relationship between the use of the SA in courses and success for students, the conclusion is likely beyond just the use of the SA as an assessment tool. In fact, there likely exists a relationship between the requirement of the SA in a course as an evaluation tool and the development of heightened focus and integration of the key outcomes of the course into the learning experience. A common assignment with integrated learning outcomes can likely influence the pedagogy of the faculty who teach the sections of the course, which will impact what students learn. Instead, we conclude that the SA helped faculty to integrate key learning foci that were being measured by the rubric, into the class. Based on this, it was decided that all sections should integrate the SA but to go further than simply require it in all sections. Faculty should instead engage all aspects to help students to learn throughout the semester and integrate these concepts throughout the course.</p> <p>Implementation of the SA was smooth by involving faculty throughout the process – from development of the rubric to mandatory implementation in FYS courses. Workshops, newsletters, data sharing, and the opportunity to provide input assured faculty were being heard and were part of the development process. As a side note, this process involved much less time than previous ways of coaching faculty on assignment development. Having one required large assignment for all sections streamlined the training process and provided a common shared experience for cross-discipline FYS faculty.</p> <p>Future research could determine baseline of student levels on the rubric areas to determine the growth of our students throughout the semester. Identifying development of the learners throughout the first year may result in more effective scaffolding of assignments to increase learning and development. This development of a Signature Assignment, designed around key learning outcomes while providing instructor and disciplinary flexibility, may serve as a potential model for assessing student learning that may also contribute to actual student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-11">Appendix A. Signature assignment example</hd> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-12">Signature Assignment Fall 2017</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-13">Researching, Writing, and Me</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-14">Moving into my Major and Career in a Cross-Cultural World</hd1> <p> <bold>Part one:</bold> Conduct an interview</p> <p>Purpose:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Interview a current or former professional about planned discipline/career/major</item> <p></p> <item> Reflect on answers to questions from interview</item> <p></p> <item> Identify issues with diversity in this discipline/career/major</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-15">Assignment</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. Interview a current or former professional in your discipline/career/major (not a family member or friend/First Year Seminar instructor will approve interviewee). With your interviewee's permission, you may record the interview and post it as an artifact in your ePortfolio.</item> <p></p> <item> b. Questions must include:</item> <p></p> <item> i. What skills, behaviors, knowledge, and/or attitudes are required to succeed in this discipline/career/major?</item> <p></p> <item> ii Does this discipline/career/major work with diverse groups in our society? If so, how? (Remember, culture/diversity is not solely about ethnicity, it's very broad and incorporates multilingualism, LGBT, special needs, socioeconomic differences, and more.) If not, explain why not.</item> <p></p> <item> iii What are some challenges to this discipline/career/major?</item> <p></p> <item> iv How important is clear communication in this major/career?</item> <p></p> <item> v What impacts can language or cultural communication barriers (written and verbal) have in/on this field/career?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> c. _B_Reflect on the answers to the questions and on the interview experience in a typed essay (minimum 300 words).</bold> </item> </ulist> <p> <bold>Part two:</bold> Complete/conduct research on the topic.</p> <p>Purpose:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Locate & print/download two sources from possible discipline/career/major –(professional and popular media).</item> <p></p> <item> Compare the information in and quality of each source.</item> <p></p> <item> Reflect in written form on the positives and negatives of each source.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-16">Assignment</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. Compare two sources on a cross-cultural/diversity topic that arose from your interview/is related to your possible discipline/career/major (discourse community). You may choose to analyze pieces of writing you have read for classes in your major, but be sure to have me approve them. Both articles need to be recent (published later than 2012).</item> <p></p> <item> i. Popular/social media source (e.g. videos, news/magazine articles, blog posts, tweets, Wikipedia entries).</item> <p></p> <item> ii. Professional source (e.g. journal found in Sacramento State library that is a "peer reviewed": a professional journal or research article).</item> <p></p> <item> b. Identify the positive and negative aspects of the type of sources used.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> c. _B_Write up short summary about each source, then analyze the differences in writing style, message, audience, and reliability in a written essay (who is the audience? what specific language suggest the audiences? what is the purpose of each article and how is it made clear? which article will be a more credible source for research papers and why? what kind(s) of evidence is used as support and why? (minimum 300 words).</bold> </item> </ulist> <p> <bold>Part three:</bold> Reflect on and hypothesize about the future</p> <p>Purpose:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Written reflection of first two assignments on future plans.</item> <p></p> <item> Identify obstacles and sources of support for future success.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-17">Assignment</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Reflect on the first two assignments (Part one and Part two) above.</item> <p></p> <item> How have your plans for the future been influenced/affected/altered by doing parts one and two?</item> <p></p> <item> What specific writing goals do you think will you need to strengthen as you move into classes in your discourse community?</item> <p></p> <item> What role might cross-cultural awareness play in your future as a student and professional?</item> <p></p> <item> How important will clear written and verbal communication skills be in your future?</item> <p></p> <item> Discuss your plan for academic and personal success, as a student at Sac State, in graduate school, and in the future.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Submit a typed reflection of at least 300 words </bold> .</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-18">Part Four: Presentation 150 points</hd1> <p>Purpose: Share your results with peers so they benefit from your research and experience.</p> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-19">Assignment</hd1> <p>You will present your results in a 5–6 minute PowerPoint (or other digital media) supported presentation. You will briefly share</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> your process of determining who to interview, who you did interview, the cross-cultural issue that arose in your interview, and the most valuable learning you gained from the process of conducting the interview (idea-wise and experience-wise);</item> <p></p> <item> the two articles you located, summaries of the two articles (don't create paragraphs on your slides; craft bullet point lists of the main ideas and implications of those ideas in the field) as well as of the differences between the different types of articles, and your comfort level with academic (peer reviewed) sources;</item> <p></p> <item> and your reflections on this research (part three above).</item> </ulist> <p> <bold>ePortfolio</bold>: Moving Into my Major and Career in a Cross-Cultural World<bold>100 points</bold></p> <p>Submit in one document (genre-appropriate for your major) <bold>revised and polished written reflections from Parts 1, 2, and 3.</bold> You will also upload your PowerPoint Presentation and any other supporting artifacts that help audiences appreciate and understand your research process.</p> <hd id="AN0148721476-20">Appendix B. Signature assignment example</hd> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-21">First Year Experience Signature Assignment</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-22">Career Investigation Project:</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-23">Final Essay and Group Presentation</hd1> <p>Your final project will give you a chance to investigate a career of interest to you. Whether or not you go into this career path, you will be learning about career formation, and as a class all together, we will learn about a variety of occupations we will encounter through people we meet throughout our lives.</p> <p>Be creative in thinking about how to present your information. For example, you might design a visual path for someone working his or her way through the system to gain this career. What might she or he encounter along his/her path?</p> <p>You will be in a group of two or three people who have similar major and/or career interests. Some of you might have identical majors and careers; others might be linked more loosely. You will each write (and be graded on) your own final paper, but you should share information you are learning and prepare a final presentation together, showing the links between your career interests.</p> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-24">The Essay and Presentation should include the following:</hd1> <p> <bold>1)Information Gathered:</bold> In your small group, you can decide among you who will research what:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> a. _B_Steps through a major</bold> and BA relevant to the career.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> b. _B_Steps beyond a BA</bold> to enter the career (a credential or certificate program, graduate school?) and subsequent titles.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> c. _B_Demographic statistics</bold> on the career or job: How popular is this career? How many people are involved in it locally, statewide, nationwide? Does that indicate that there is high demand and opportunity for people going into this field or not?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> d. _B_Nature of the career or job</bold>. <bold>Hours/schedule</bold> that people typically work.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> ii. _B_Location & conditions of work</bold>: e.g. indoors? outdoors? a cubicle in an office? busy urban scenario? dangerous? independent? computer- or people-oriented?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> iii. _B_Salary/wages and benefits</bold> (health & other insurance).</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> iv. _B_Opportunities to advance</bold> within the career (both in terms of salary and responsibilities/promotion).</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> v. _B_Challenges</bold>: What are typical problems or downsides of this job? Dealing with problematic clients or customers? Costs incurred to get started in a business? Certain locations more trouble than others? Are there controversies or political issues involved?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> vi. _B_Positive aspects</bold> of this career or job.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> vii. Note _B_professional associations</bold> related to the job, locally, statewide or nationally that help members.</item> </ulist> <p> <bold>e. Educational opportunities within this career</bold>: Note the possibilities for being an educator within this career, such as working in human resources within an organization, leading professional development sessions, educating co-workers, contributing to professional conferences, or any other ways that education continues onthe job.</p> <p> <bold>2) Interview reports:</bold> Each individual should have interviewed someone in the designated field. You may have interviewed a professor in the field—great! But you also need to <emph>interview someone active in the field</emph>. In particular, find out what kind of education your interviewee received and how he or she views the challenges and advantages of the job. Get a real sense of what it is like to perform this work. Observe them at work if possible! Use information in #1 above to make interview questions.</p> <p>Also address the following topics in the interview:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1) What skills, behaviors, knowledge, and/or attitudes are required to succeed in this career?</item> <p></p> <item> 2) Does the career with diverse groups of in our society? If so, how? If not, explain why not.</item> <p></p> <item> 3) What are some challenges to this career?</item> <p></p> <item> 4) What goes on in the workplace for those who choose these paths?</item> <p></p> <item> 5) How do professionals in these careers affect our lives in sometimes unacknowledged ways?</item> </ulist> <p> <bold>3) Personal Understandings:</bold> Make concluding remarks about your thoughts regarding a path through this career after having learned this information. Has this process changed your perspective on the career? And how do you now see college as the pathway toward this career?</p> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-25">THE ESSAY (20 points): should include the following three part of analysis.</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 300 words including the facts gathered from the interview.</item> <p></p> <item> 300 words an analysis comparing and contrasting (positive and negative) the data sources used. In the 300 word analysis, students are to discuss writing styles, message, audience, reliability of the data sources.</item> <p></p> <item> 300 words reflecting on the future of this career. Did the student's perspective on the career change after doing research on this career? In this reflection students are also to address their future plans for success at CSUS and their career goals.</item> </ulist> <p>The essay is to be 1000 words, double-spaced, typed and include at least <emph>five</emph> references to sources, including one from a book and one from a journal. Compare the information and quality of the sources in your essay. Any websites should be credible (such as from state or national data on labor statistics). As a group you can share the work of finding and exchanging sources. Include a "References" list at the end of your essay with all five sources, APA format and style.</p> <p>Think about introducing your essay in an interesting way (not "The career I investigated was...."). You might dramatize a "scenario" from work in that field, making it sound exciting or interesting. Close your essay with your personal understandings.</p> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-26">The Final Essay is due on the day of your group presentation.</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-27">YOUR PRESENTATION (20 points): Make it interesting & thought-provoking!</hd1> <p>The group presentation as a whole should cover all the information noted above, providing your classmates with a well-rounded picture of the career you've researched.</p> <p>Thus, use your research and essay as the foundation of your presentation. If you and your partners have investigated the same career path, you should divide up your presentation so that you each present different parts of the topic.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Speakers: </bold> Each person must speak for <emph>at least 10 minutes</emph> as part of the presentation. Practice together in order to be sure your talk goes smoothly, that you are providing good eye contact with your audience, and that your body language suggests confidence.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Audiovisuals: </bold> Collectively you should have an audiovisual aid: video clips, power point presentation, posters, handouts, role play, etc. The more interesting, the better.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Introductory or Follow Up Questions: </bold> Prepare 2-3 questions to get your audience interaction. You might ask questions beforehand to find what they associate with this career. Stimulate discussion afterwards by having some thought provoking questions. Finally, ask for questions from your audience after your presentation.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0148721476-28">Appendix C. Signature assignment example</hd> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-29">First Year Experience Signature Assignment</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-30">TOTAL POINTS: 50 Points</hd1> <p> <bold>Expected Learning Outcomes:</bold> Upon completion of all three pieces, the student will be able to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Locate and analyze a variety of information sources in their discipline.</item> <p></p> <item> Discuss their discipline and/or profession with an expert in their field.</item> <p></p> <item> Identify issues regarding diversity and inclusivity within their discipline.</item> <p></p> <item> Reflect on information from activities in an essay formatted using their disciplinary manual of style.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-31">Part ONE: Conduct research and evaluate resources: 20 points</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-32">Purpose:</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Identify five sources relating to your discipline and professional goals.</item> <p></p> <item> Compare the information from each source to determine how each contributes to ones understanding of the discipline or profession.</item> <p></p> <item> Reflect in written form on the positives and negatives of each source.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-33">Assignment:</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Using electronic resources or print material, locate one</item> <p></p> <item> • peer-reviewed article from an academic journal;</item> <p></p> <item> • chapter from a book written or edited by an expert in the field;</item> <p></p> <item> • popular editorial piece or review from a popular magazine, newspaper, documentary, or website;</item> <p></p> <item> • professional interview from in print of video format;</item> <p></p> <item> • and one reference source such as an encyclopedia, disciplinary dictionary, or liner notes from a CD.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Complete the "almost an annotated bibliography" worksheet that will guide you through the evaluation of each source.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. The "almost an annotated bibliography" will need to include a citation for each source using the Chicago Manual of Style (author/date) format. Follow the worksheet to analyze each source of information for its purpose: its presumed audience, its agenda, its reliability, and its contribution to your knowledge base. You will also be prompted to consider its value in and outside the academy, such as why or why do you not believe it would be an acceptable source for a research paper, or would it be more useful as preliminary research to inform your research process?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-34">Part TWO: Interview a professional in your discipline or field: 20 points</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-35">Purpose:</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Identify at least three people with expertise in your discipline or a professional currently employed in work related to your professional goals.</item> <p></p> <item> Prepare a set of six questions to ask your expert and submit for approval before requesting an interview appointment.</item> <p></p> <item> Compose an informational interview; contact one or more of the experts you identified for an appointment to run your interview.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-36">Assignment:</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Choose one professional from your research (Part One)—not a family member or friend—whom you will be able to contact and interview (in person or online).</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Write a draft INVITATION to be interviewed—to be discussed in class, an example will be provided.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. When your instructor has approved your "Invitation, send it via email or social media to the expert you have chosen to set up an interview.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. You can interview your expert using Skype, Zoom, the telephone, or ask the expert to respond in writing. Any mode is acceptable, so choose the one that is most agreeable to them and accessible to you both.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Note: Prepare a set of six questions informed by your research to ask your expert; include at least one question with a follow up question, and one question regarding issues of diversity and inclusion that face the discipline or career</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> 6. Submit your SIX INTERVIEW QUESTIONS for approval by _B_[due date TBA].</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> 7. Consider the following elements of an information interview when composing your questions:</item> <p></p> <item> a. What skills, behaviors, knowledge, and/or attitudes are required to succeed in this discipline/career/major?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> b. Does this discipline or profession include diverse groups or points of view from our local or global communities? Ask the expert to examine areas in which the discipline or field is successfully inclusive and areas where it can be improved. _B_Note:</bold> Diversity includes, but is not limited to, ethnicity, race, sex, religion, LGBTQ+, mental and physical disabilities, access to technology, freedom of expression, and socioeconomic inequities.</item> <p></p> <item> c. What are some challenges to this discipline/career/major?</item> <p></p> <item> 8. Submit PROOF of your interview as well as a summary of the answers give to each question in script format (no more than 200 words per question for a total of no more than 1200 words). An example will be provided.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-37">Part THREE: Reflect on the Future:10 points</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-38">Purpose:</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Compose a reflection on Parts 1 & 2 of the Signature Assignment.</item> <p></p> <item> Identify obstacles and sources of support for future success.</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0148721476-39">Assignment info:</hd1> <p>Reflection essay:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Compose a written response describing your experience locating and analyzing information on your discipline or area of interest. Include the resources from your "almost annotated bibliography" as well as the information you gathered conducting the interview.</item> <p></p> <item> Consider asking yourself how you will use the information you learned from your research and expert interview moving forward? What was did you find out that you did not expect when reviewing information? What did the expert say that you felt was important to consider but had not before? Were there things you found out about in your research or that the expert said that you would like to learn more about? Were there things you found in your research or that the expert said that made you nervous or that you disagreed with?</item> <p></p> <item> The reflection should be a minimum of 300 words, formatted in Chicago Author/Date style, and include an interview citation. You may also choose to develop a presentation or portfolio in lieu of a written assignment, please discuss with your instructor. However, you will still need to include a works cited page.</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0148721476-40"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2015. " High-Impact Educational Practices." https://<ulink href="http://www.aacu.org/leap/hips">www.aacu.org/leap/hips</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2018. " VALUE Rubrics." https://<ulink href="http://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics">www.aacu.org/value-rubrics</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Banta, T. W., M. Griffin, T. L. Flateby, and S. Kahn. 2009. "Three Promising Alternatives for Assessing College Students' Knowledge and Skills: Occasional Paper #2." National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. <ulink href="http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/AlternativesforAssessment.pdf">http://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/AlternativesforAssessment.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baxter Magolda, Marcia B. 2000. Creating Contexts for Learning and Self-Authorship: Constructive-Developmental Pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bennett, J. M. 2008. "Transformative Training: Designing Programs for Culture Learning." In Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Understanding and Utilizing Cultural Diversity to Build Successful Organizations, edited by M. A. Moodian, 95–110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Buyarski, C. A., and C. M. Landis. 2014. " Using an ePortfolio to Assess the Outcomes of a First Year Seminar: Student Narrative and Authentic Assessment." International Journal of ePortfolio 4 (1): 49 – 60. <ulink href="http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP133.pdf">http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP133.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Donham, J. 2014. " College Ready–What Can we Learn from First-Year College Assignments? An Examination of Assignments in Iowa Colleges and Universities." School Library Research 17 : EJ1022552. <ulink href="http://www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume17/donham">http://www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume17/donham</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Forrester, R., K. Hutson, and T. To. 2013. " Improving the Quality of the Assignment of Students to First-Year Seminars." OR Insight 26 (2): 120 – 39. doi: 10.1057/ori.2012.11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Jensen, M., A. Mattheis, and B. Johnson. 2012. " Using Student Learning and Development Outcomes to Evaluate a First-Year Undergraduate Group Video Project." CBE Life Sciences Education 11 (1): 68 – 80. https://<ulink href="http://www.lifescied.org/doi/pdf/10.1187/cbe.11-06-0049">www.lifescied.org/doi/pdf/10.1187/cbe.11-06-0049</ulink>. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-06-0049.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinzie, J. 2013. " Advancing the Study of a Movement: The Status of Methods and Measures in First-Year Experience and Student Transition Research." Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition 25 (2): 39 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., S. O. Ikenberry, N. A. Jankowski, T. R. Cain, P. T. Ewell, P. Hutchings, and J. Kinzie. 2015. Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. ProQuest Ebook Central.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowe, M. S., S. M. Stone, C. Booth, and N. Tagge. 2015. " Impacting Information Literacy Learning in First-Year Seminars: A Rubric-Based Evaluation." Portal: Libraries and the Academy 15 (3): 489 – 512. doi: 10.1353/pla.2015.0030.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reason, R. D., and A. M. Gansemer-Topf. 2013. " Reconsidering the Application of Research to Practice for Students in Transition." Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition 25 (2): 27 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhodes, T. 2010. Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and Tools for Using Rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sholy, L., and R. Zeenny. 2013. " Instructional Design and Assessment: A Career Exploration Assignment for First-Year Pharmacy Students." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 77 (9): 195. doi: 10.5688/ajpe779195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, D. N., R. Goldfine, and M. Windham. 2009. " Comparing Student Learning Outcomes in an Independent Section of a First-Year Seminar to a First-Year Seminar Embedded in a Learning Community." Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition 21 (2): 47 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steiner, H. H. 2016. " The Strategy Project: Promoting Self-Regulated Learning through an Authentic Assignment." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 28 (2): 271 – 82. <ulink href="http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE2211.pdf">http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE2211.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). 2014. "Program Learning Outcomes Rubric." https://<ulink href="http://www.wscuc.org/content/rubric-program-learning-outcomes">www.wscuc.org/content/rubric-program-learning-outcomes</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bridget Parsh; Emily Merrifield; Todd Migliaccio and Rheena Munoz</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1285115
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evaluating First Year Seminar Student Success by Developing a Signature Assignment: A Case Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Parsh%2C+Bridget%22">Parsh, Bridget</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Merrifield%2C+Emily%22">Merrifield, Emily</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Migliaccio%2C+Todd%22">Migliaccio, Todd</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Munoz%2C+Rheena%22">Munoz, Rheena</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+Teaching%22"><i>College Teaching</i></searchLink>. 2021 69(1):20-31.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22First+Year+Seminars%22">First Year Seminars</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assignments%22">Assignments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scoring+Rubrics%22">Scoring Rubrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lifelong+Learning%22">Lifelong Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Awareness%22">Cultural Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Literacy%22">Information Literacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/87567555.2020.1794779
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-7555
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: First Year Seminars have been found to positively impact student experience and retention in universities, especially in large-outcome measures such as grade point average, retention rates, and ultimately, graduation rates. Common learning experiences, a high-impact practice, such as course readings, a syllabus template, and discussion topics help to positively impact student learning. To evaluate authentic student learning, a campus First Year Experience rubric and Signature Assignment (SA) were developed for a more comprehensive assessment. With the integration of the SA into the course, assessment was refined through a multi-year process. Designed around key learning outcomes, the SA provides instructor and disciplinary flexibility and may serve as a potential model for other institutions looking to standardize the learning outcome evaluation across courses.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1285115
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1285115
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/87567555.2020.1794779
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 20
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: First Year Seminars
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scoring Rubrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lifelong Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Literacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evaluating First Year Seminar Student Success by Developing a Signature Assignment: A Case Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Parsh, Bridget
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Merrifield, Emily
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Migliaccio, Todd
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Munoz, Rheena
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-7555
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: College Teaching
              Type: main
ResultId 1