Table 1 (continued). Summary of aspects of quantitative literacy that were assessed in the 2015-16 QL ILO assessment. What was assessed? How? What did we learn? What did we do? (continued) The scope and adequacy The GE committee undertook a There appears to be a high These findings were presented to the GE of quantitative literacy QAR syllabus review to degree of instructor support for committee. Pending GE committee, senate, and education inputs at evaluate the extent to which the QAR GE category, although whole faculty discussion of the QAR assessment Westmont. Specifically, these documents evidenced a there is room for improvement in results as well as further faculty discussion on we focused on whether rigorous and pervasive terms of our expectations for expectations for syllabi and how they should be our QAR GE category is approach to quantitative how effectively instructors taught and enforced. adequate in terms of the literacy. explain how their course meets number and range of the QAR GE certification criteria, courses represented, and especially with respect to the intended assessing quantitative models as pervasiveness and rigor tools in the natural and social of QL in a Westmont sciences. education. (Continued) Senior and first year responses Westmont students perceive These findings were presented to the GE to the three quantitative themselves to engage in committee, academic senate, and full faculty. literacy questions on the quantitative reasoning about as While our ultimate course of action is pending National Survey of Student often as other CCCU students and GE committee, senate, and whole faculty Engagement (NSSE) were as often as or slightly less often discussion of the QAR assessment results, the reviewed. These questions ask than their peers at other consensus so far is that student engagement students about the frequency California and US institutions. with quantitative reasoning can be improved by with which they engage in addressing the other issues identified in this quantitative literacy and assessment. reasoning tasks. Table 1 (continued). Summary of aspects of quantitative literacy that were assessed in the 2015-16 QL ILO assessment.
Table 1 (continued). Summary of aspects of quantitative literacy that were assessed in the 2015-16 QL ILO assessment. What was assessed? (continued) How? What did we learn? What did we do? The scope and adequacy of quantitative literacy education inputs at Westmont. Specifically, we focused on whether our QAR GE category is adequate in terms of the number and range of courses represented, and the intended pervasiveness and rigor of QL in a Westmont education. (Continued) The GE committee undertook a QAR syllabus review to evaluate the extent to which these documents evidenced a rigorous and pervasive approach to quantitative literacy. There appears to be a high degree of instructor support for the QAR GE category, although there is room for improvement in terms of our expectations for how effectively instructors explain how their course meets the QAR GE certification criteria, especially with respect to assessing quantitative models as tools in the natural and social sciences. These findings were presented to the GE committee. Pending GE committee, senate, and whole faculty discussion of the QAR assessment results as well as further faculty discussion on expectations for syllabi and how they should be taught and enforced. Senior and first year responses to the three quantitative literacy questions on the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) were reviewed. These questions ask students about the frequency with which they engage in quantitative literacy and reasoning tasks. Westmont students perceive themselves to engage in quantitative reasoning about as often as other CCCU students and as often as or slightly less often than their peers at other California and US institutions. These findings were presented to the GE committee, academic senate, and full faculty. While our ultimate course of action is pending GE committee, senate, and whole faculty discussion of the QAR assessment results, the consensus so far is that student engagement with quantitative reasoning can be improved by addressing the other issues identified in this assessment. Table 1 (continued). Summary of aspects of quantitative literacy that were assessed in the 2015-16 QL ILO assessment.