Assessment of Syllabus Components

ASSESSMENT OF SYLLABUS COMPONENTS CCPRC – 24-APR-2015 *Diversity Objectives Classroom **Content Assessment Comment Context 3 Clear diversity Consideration is Materials/techni- Diversity is related given to the ques/approaches included as part objective(s) is variation in that enhance of consideration evident learners in the student across class (ex. a course understanding of all/majority of is listed for diversity in relation assessments in undergrad and to course content relation to stated doctoral are clearly objective(s) [in students) identified the description throughout the or metrics] Course Outline 2 It is not clear Materials/techni- Diversity is whether a ques/approaches included as part diversity that enhance of consideration related student for only one statement is understanding of assessments [in included diversity in relation the description [additional to course content or metrics] information have a designated may be week in the Course required] Outline 1 Diversity is not No Consideration Materials/techni- Diversity is not identified as is given to the ques/approaches included as part part of any variation in that enhance of consideration objective, or learners in the student for any as a stand class (ex. a course understanding of assessment alone is listed for diversity in relation objective undergrad and to course content doctoral are not identified at students) any point in time in the Course Outline *The term “diversity” need not be present in the objective; nor is it required that the “diversity” objective be stand-alone. To examine examples for objectives across a wide variety of programs and departments, see the resource page for “Integration of Diversity” **As indicated, in the “Integration of Diversity” statement, there is no one correct way to integrate diversity in your course and/or program. However, we do inquire about the ways that diversity is thoughtfully integrated throughout the course. Learning Objectives Specific Measurable Clear Comments Each learning objective is Each learning objective is Across the objectives, distinct from the others written in language that a clear picture of 4 and highlights learning concretely course purpose and that will result by the end operationalizes the expected learning of the course. Across the intended learning, thus outcomes are objectives, there is a allowing for each one to presented. sense of how knowledge be reliably assessed. Objectives support and meaningful learning overall course will accrue in the course. goal(s). Most objectives are Most objectives, with the With one or two distinct, but one or two exception of one or two, exceptions, the 3 may have overlap with are written in language objectives provide a others that can be that concretely clear picture of eliminated with operationalizes the course purpose and additional specification. intended learning expected learning Across the objectives allowing for reliable outcomes. Objectives there is a sense of how assessment. mostly support knowledge and overall course meaningful learning will goal(s). accrue in the course. There is a fair amount of The language used in the Across the learning overlap across the objectives does not objectives, there is a 2 objectives and several operationalize the vague or confusing are not distinguishable intended learning but picture of course from the others. Re- rather uses abstract purpose and learning writing is needed. language, thus not outcomes. There is allowing for reliable issue with how the assessment. objectives support the overall course goal(s). Objectives are too broad, The language used in the Across the learning vague, OR seem objectives is not objectives, there is 1 unrelated to course and operationalized thus lack of clarity on the could apply to most any leading to an unclear intended purpose of learning situation. direction for assessment. the course. 4: Ready for distribution 2: Needs revisions and committee re-review

3: Some revisions recommended 1: Needs significant revisions and committee re-review

Grading Policy

Clarity to Factors included in Technical Stakeholders Grades Aspects of COMMENTS Grading There is a clearly Grades are based Calculations for defined grading solely on student determining grades 3 policy that is demonstration of are fully described, reasonable for the achievement relative align with best calculation of to the learning practice (e.g., no use course grades. objectives. Non- of “0”; score scale achievement factors distribution) and are such as effort, class accurate. participation, and late work do not go into a There is appropriate student’s final grade. weighting of the assessments relative There is opportunity to the emphases of for students to receive learning outcomes descriptive feedback in calculating course (practice work) without grades. a grade attached. There is a written In instances where it is policy regarding the appropriate, the most reviewing of recent evidence borderline cases. replaces older evidence for calculation of course grade. While a grading Grades are a Calculations for policy is described, combination of determining grades course grades are practice work and are described but based on several formal assessment but more clarity could assessments that formal assessment be provided; align 2 seem irrelevant to constitutes a significant with best practice the learning part of the grade. (e.g., no use of “0”) objectives. There are some non- though other best achievement factors practices could be considered in the considered (e.g., calculation of course score scale); grades (e.g., calculations are participation, accurate. attendance, effort, late work, incomplete There is appropriate work). weighting of the assessments relative to the emphases of learning outcomes in calculating course grades.

There is a written policy regarding the reviewing of borderline cases. A grading policy Both practice work and There is little to no regarding the basis formal assessments are description of the for calculating graded and considered basis for calculating 1 grades is missing in the student’s overall course grades. OR is based on course grade. Many irrelevant non-achievement There is little to no information. factors are considered consideration of in the calculation of weighting (if course grades (e.g., appropriate) or participation, inappropriate attendance, effort, weighting of incomplete work, late assessments relative work). to the learning objectives.

No written policy is proved regarding the re-reviewing of borderline cases. 3: Ready for Distribution

2: Some Revisions Recommended

1: Significant Revisions Need and Committee Re-Review ASSESSMENT Focus Student Quality COMMENTS Involvement There is a mixture of Students are The assessments both formal and frequently involved in appear to be 3 informal their own self- carefully designed so assessments that assessment as well as as to produce align with the peer assessment. accurate information. learning objectives (i.e., have face Each assessment is validity). written in clear unambiguous The combination of language ensuring assessments students have a appears to yield common information that understanding of the covers the range of assessment. learning objectives. A clear description of the criteria that is used for evaluating student work is provided.

There is a mixture of There are few The assessments both formal and opportunities for appear mostly to be 2 informal students to self- and designed so as to assessments. peer-assess but other produce accurate opportunities could be information but Additional considered. there are a few consideration needs instances where to be given to addition ensuring that the consideration could full range of be given. objectives are covered. Most assessments are written in language ensuring students have a common understanding of the assessment. A description of the criteria that is used for evaluating student work is provided but additional clarity could be added in some areas. All of the Students are not given The assessments assessments are the opportunity for seem to be poorly 1 informal self-assessment or conceptualized OR assessments or that peer assessment. don’t appear to are no formal address the learning assessments. objectives.

The assessments are not described with clarity.

Criteria for evaluating student work are missing, OR are not clearly communicated, OR are misaligned with the assessment purpose. 3: Ready for Distribution

1: Significant Revisions Need and Committee Re-Review Course Alignment Content Match Depth Match Comments Each of the components (Course The course components Goal(s), Objectives through (learning objectives through 3 Assessments) is directly connected assessments) reflect similar to other components and work to levels of cognitive processing reinforce one another. (e.g., apply analytical skills is a course objective and assessment is a direct measure of objective). The components are mostly The course components connected to one although a (learning objectives through 2 tighter connection between a assessments) reflect similar couple components could be levels of cognitive processing made to better reinforce one although a better connection another. between learning objectives and assessments could be made. The components are fragmented The course components and do not reinforce one another. (learning objectives through 1 assessments) do not reflect similar levels of cognitive processing (e.g., apply analytical skills is a course objective but assessment only measures factual recall). 3: Ready for Distribution

1: Significant Revisions Need and Committee Re-Review Other Required Syllabus Information

Info Present Accurate Comments YES NO YES NO General Course Information (e.g., Instructor name, year, term, course title, location, office hours)

Class Specific Information (e.g., course requirements, schedule, required text (if applicable), course schedule)

Relevant UVa Policies Statements (e.g., Attendance, University Email, Honor System, Special Needs)

Civility Statement

Other: