Evidence of Student Learning Report
The Six-Year Plan
In accordance with a policy established by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), CNU has established a six-year assessment reporting plan that identifies critical competencies for student success and describes how each is measured. The achievement of those competencies is updated here annually, as that data is collected.
Second Language Literacy
We define Second Language Literacy as the ability to read, write, listen, and speak a language that is not your native language.
What We Expect Our Students to Learn
Students will demonstrate reading comprehension of a short text in the target language.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in a 200-level foreign language course are required to take the final exam.
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
On the final exam, students will read passages in the foreign language and respond to short-answer questions in English.
Target: What score did we expect?
70% of students will score 70% (or above) on reading comprehension.
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2019
- Spanish: 86% of students scored 70% or higher.
We plan to increase the difficulty of reading comprehension questions on the exam. - French: 90% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue to develop reading activities that promote string proficiency in reading comprehension. - German: 43% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will devote more class time, homework and assignments to reading comprehension strategies.
2025
- Spanish: 73% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue adding more extra practice outside and inside the class period and we will continue to monitor the progress. - French: 97% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue to do more practice, monitor the group of students we receive next time, and adjust the activities to fit their needs. - German: 67% of students scored 70% or higher.
The German instructors will brainstorm ways to improve students’ reading comprehension in the target language, including adding additional practice opportunities inside and outside of the classroom.
Students can compose a passage in the target language that a sympathetic native speaker could understand.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in a 200-level foreign language course are required to take the final exam.
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
On the final exam, students will write a short passage in the target language.
Target: What score did we expect?
70% of students will score 70% (or above) on reading comprehension.
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2019
- Spanish: 88% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue focusing on writing skills with in-class assignments, homework and exams. - French: 74% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will develop more peer review writing activities to help improve students' confidence in writing. - German: 92% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will encourage more in-class writing assignments to help students rely less on translation tools.
2025
- Spanish: 82% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue doing in-class compositions and incorporating more practice during class. - French: 90% of students scored 70% or higher.
The French program will continue to incorporate writing activities in the practice of all the material. - German: 98% of students scored 70% or higher.
We need to rethink the efficacy of the homework assignments due to the use of online translators and AI.
Students can answer questions on listening stimuli at the intermediate-low level on the ACTFL scale.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in a 200-level foreign language course are required to take the final exam.
Measure: How are we rating their performance
On the final exam, students will answer 10 multiple-choice questions in the target language, based on material learned in two listening passages at the intermediate-low level.
Target: What score did we expect?
70% of students will score 70% (or above) on listening competency.
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2019
- Spanish: 97% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will work on increasing the complexity of the listening sections in future assessments. - French: 80% of students scored 70% or higher.
Audio material (songs, video clips) will continue to be an integral part of the teaching resources. FREN 200 instructors will also continue to use the many listening resources offered by the textbook. - German: 70% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue assigning listening activities through in-class activities and homework.
2025
- Spanish: 96% of students scored 70% or higher.
We modified the final exam to increase difficulty of listening sections. - French: 84% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue assigning a variety of listening activities and conduct classes solely in French language. - German: 88% of students scored 70% or higher.
We will continue to emphasize listening skills, integrating songs and cultural videos as appropriate.
Students can demonstrate the ability to accurately translate into English a Latin passage at the intermediate-mid level on the scale of the National Standards for Classical Language Learning.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in a 200-level Latin course are required to take the final exam.
Measure: How are we rating their performance
On the final exam, students will translate a Latin passage at the intermediate-mid level into correct English.
Target: What score did we expect?
70% of students will score at the intermediate-mid level (or above) on translation ability.
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2019
- Latin: 73% of students scored 70% or higher.
Continue using the newly adopted textbook for lower-level Latin classes, which helps with translation.
2025
- Latin: 92% of students scored 70% or higher.
We recommend that the basic materials and methods be retained, but with an added emphasis on the concepts taught towards the end of LATN 200. In particular, this should be accomplished via fuller explanations, additional examples, and/or more focused homework assignments as well as a greater presence on quizzes and exams.
Critical Thinking
We define Creative Thinking as the ability to subject one’s own and others’ ideas, arguments, assumptions and evidence to careful and logical scrutiny in order to make an informed judgment, draw a sound conclusion or solve a problem.
What we expect our students to learn
Students will be able to recognize formally valid forms of argument.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
200 randomly selected students with senior status, who took the CLA+ during their freshman year.
Measures: How are we rating their performance?
This Learning Outcome is measured through the Critical Reading and Evaluation (CRE) subsection of the CLA+.
Targets: What score did we expect?
Percentages of scores expected on the CRE subsections.
| SQR Levels | CRE Subsection Targets |
|---|---|
| Level 1 | 90% of students will score 500 (or above) |
| Level 2 | 45% of students will score 600 (or above) |
| Level 3 | 10% of students will score 700 (or above) |
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2020
| SQR Levels | CRE Subsection Findings |
|---|---|
| Level 1 | 79.5% of students scored 500 (or above) |
| Level 2 | 32.5% of students scored 600 (or above) |
| Level 3 | 1.7% of students scored 700 (or above) |
2020 Action Plans: Distribute the CLA+ sample questions packet to course instructor and encourage instructors to set aside some class time (this need not be more than 30 minutes) to familiarize students with the types of questions on the CLA+ relevant to assessing the outcome, and to address any potential confusions or evident weaknesses that emerge. Instructors can either use sample questions as exercises for teaching the normal content of their course (in cases where the content of the questions overlaps with course content), or alter the content of the questions to fit course content.
Students will demonstrate the ability to detect logical fallacies.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
200 randomly selected students with senior status, who took the CLA+ during their freshman year.
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
This Learning Outcome is measured through the following subsections of the CLA+:
- Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning (SQR)
- Critiquing and Argument (CA)
Target: What score did we expect?
Percentages of scores expected on the SQR subsections
| SQR Subsection Targets | CA Subsections Targets | |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 90% of students will score 500 (or above) | 85% of students will score 500 (or above) |
| Level 2 | 50% of students will score 600 (or above) | 40% of students will score 600 (or above) |
| Level 3 | 10% of students will score 700 (or above) | 10% of students will score 700 (or above) |
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2020
| SQR Subsection Findings | CA Subsections Findings | |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 88% of students scored 500 (or above) | 77.8% of students scored 500 (or above) |
| Level 2 | 51.3% of students scored 600 (or above) | 24.8% of students scored 600 (or above) |
| Level 3 | 9.4% of students scored 700 (or above) | 0.9% of students scored 700 (or above) |
2020 Action Plans: Advise instructors to consult rubric for APS, WE, and WM subsections of CLA+ in preparing students for, and grading, argument papers.
Quantitative Reasoning
We define Quantitative Reasoning as the ability to manipulate, analyze, and/or evaluate numbers and numerical data.
What We Expect Our Students to Learn
Students will utilize mathematics and mathematical concepts to solve applied problems.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in MATH 115, 125, and 135
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
Common question(s) are embedded on the final exam for each course
Target: What score did we expect?
- Individual student scores are at least 60% accurate
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2021
| Targets per Math Course | Findings per Math Course | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MATH 115 | Student scores are at least 60% accurate | Student scores were 61.0% accurate | Target met |
| MATH 125 | Student scores are at least 60% accurate | Student scores were 65.0% accurate | Target met |
| MATH 135 | Student scores are at least 60% accurate | Student scores were 61.0% accurate | Target met |
2021 Action Plans: The financial questions will need to be even more specific on how to round in-between calculations. Each of the algorithm methods is fairly involved and when students make a mistake early in the process, it can have major implications later. This is not only an issue of rounding during intermediary steps, but some errors can cause future steps to become impossible to complete.
Students will demonstrate knowledge of core mathematical principles and theories.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in MATH 115, 125, and 135
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
Common question(s) are embedded on the final exam for each course
Target: What score did we expect?
- Individual student scores are at least 60% accurate
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2021
| Targets per Math Course | Findings per Math Course | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MATH 115 | Student scores are at least 60% accurate | Student scores were 73.0% accurate | Target met |
| MATH 125 | Student scores are at least 60% accurate | Student scores were 65.0% accurate | Target met |
| MATH 135 | Student scores are at least 60% accurate | Student scores were 75.0% accurate | Target met |
2021 Action Plans: Change the central limit questions to open-ended or have multiple-choice for steps in-between because one multiple choice question is not enough to assess student understanding. We will continue to emphasize SLOs and strive for improvement.
Students will be able to use the model of supply and demand to illustrate one immediate and one secondary effect of a public policy.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
All students enrolled in ECON 200 and 202
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
Items #7 and #8 on the Economics Departmental Test (EDT)
Target: What score did we expect?
All student scores are at least 75% accurate
Findings: What score did our students earn?
2021
| EDT Items | EDT Targets | EDT Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EDT #7 | Average overall scores for both test items is at least 75% | Student scores were 72.8% accurate | Average overall scores for EDT items # 7 & 8 86.20% Target Met |
| EDT #8 | Student scores were 96.3% accurate | ||
2021 Action Plans: While students met this target overall in both cycles, question #7 has proven to be the lesser understood of the two questions. Professors have been asked to continue to spend more time on the shortage and surplus implications of the Supply and Demand Model. The practice of putting price floors and/or price ceilings into place, is critical to understanding the public policy implications that may occur when the price controls are actually applied.
Civic Engagement
We define Civic Engagement as an array of knowledge, abilities, values, attitudes, and behaviors that in combination allow individuals to contribute to the civic life of their communities.
What we expect our students to learn
Students will be able to describe an effect of an American democratic or civic institution on the residents of the United States.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
- 20% of the artifacts selected by course professors randomly selected from each course participating in the Civic and Democratic Engagement Area of Inquiry (AIDE)
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
- Student artifacts evaluated by AIDE rubric
Target: What score did we expect?
- 85% of the sampled artifacts will receive a score of 2 or greater (meet expectations or above) on the AIDE rubric scale of 0 to 4
Finding: What score did our students earn?
2022
| Student Learning Outcome #1 | Target and Findings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Students will describe the effect an American democratic or civic institution has on the residents of the United States. | 85% of the students sampled will receive a score of ≥ 2 (meets expectations or above). | 77% of the students sampled received a score of ≥ 2 (meets expectations or above). | Target Not Met |
2022 Action plans: Since the findings were somewhat close to the target and recent adjustments (such as new SLOs and the university moving out of the COVID-19 pandemic), no further specific actions are necessary at this time. We are advising the AIDE faculty to familiarize themselves with the new SLOs that were revised in 2021 in anticipation of the next assessment cycle. The rubric was revised for the next assessment cycle.
Students will be able to discuss one or more ways in which individuals may interact with a democratic or civic institution.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
- 20% of the artifacts selected by course professors randomly selected from each course participating in the Civic and Democratic Engagement Area of Inquiry (AIDE)
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
- Student artifacts evaluated by AIDE rubric
Target: What score did we expect?
-
- 85% of the sampled artifacts will receive a score of 2 or greater (meet expectations or above) on the AIDE rubric scale of 0 to 4
Finding: What score did our students earn?
2022
| Student Learning Outcome #2 | Target and Findings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Students will discuss one or more ways in which individuals may interact with a democratic or civic institution. | 85% of the students sampled will receive a score of ≥ 2 (meets expectations or above). | 67% of the students sampled received a score of ≥ 2 (meets expectations or above). | Target Not Met |
2022 Action plans: We recommend that faculty describe what language, terms, and concepts should be found in adequate responses used to measure a student’s ability to describe an effect of an American democratic or civic institution. We recommend that faculty continue to discuss with their departmental colleagues: which artifacts will be used to measure SLO 2; at what point in the semester students will complete these artifacts; and what course content and pedagogy can help students to better achieve SLO 2. The rubric was revised for the next assessment cycle.
Information Literacy
We define Information Literacy as the ability to critically evaluate and synthesize existing information/research, and to apply these skills appropriately to generate new knowledge.
What we expect our students to learn (2023)
Students will demonstrate the ability to evaluate information.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
- 20% of the final student capstone projects, randomly selected each Spring; and 20% of the final student papers, randomly selected each Fall
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
- Rubric evaluated Capstone and English 223 assignments
Target: What score did we expect?
- 84% of Capstone projects will score 3 or greater on the Information Literacy rubric;
- 92% of English 223 papers will score 3 or greater on the Information Literacy rubric
Finding: What score did our students earn?
2023
| Measure | Findings | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Capstone | 90.4% of students scored 3 (or greater) | Target Met |
| ENG 223 | 80.0% of students scored 3 (or greater) | Target Not Met |
Action plans - 2023: Though one target was not met, the scores for SLO 1 over the five-year period show consistent improvement. We will continue to address the importance of evaluating information.
Students will demonstrate the ability to synthesize information.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
- 20% of the final student capstone projects, randomly selected each Spring; and 20% of the final student papers, randomly selected each Fall
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
- Rubric evaluated Capstone and English 223 assignments
Target: What score did we expect?
- 84% of Capstone projects will score 3 or greater on the Information Literacy rubric;
- 92% of English 223 papers will score 3 or greater on the Information Literacy rubric
Finding: What score did our students earn?
2023
| Measure | Findings | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Capstone | 90.4% of students scored 3 (or greater) | Target Met |
| ENG 223 | 73.0% of students scored 3 (or greater) | Target Not Met |
Action plans - 2023: Though one target was not met, the scores for SLO 2 over the five-year period show consistent improvement. We will continue to address the importance of synthesizing information.
Written Communication
We define Written Communication as the ability to develop and communicate ideas effectively in writing as appropriate to a given context, purpose, and audience.
What we expect our students to learn
Students will employ deep critical thought, effective prose style, and consideration of an audience’s expectations through the creation of essays.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
- 200 randomly-selected students with senior status, who took the CLA+ during their freshmen year.
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
- Writing Effectiveness subsection of the CLA+ scored with a 6-point rubric
Target: What score did we expect?
- 87% of students will score 3 or greater (Satisfactory)
- 47% of students will score 4 or greater (Exceeds Satisfaction)
Finding: What score did our students earn?
2024
| Measure | Findings | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Writing Effectiveness | 89% of students scored a 3 or greater | Met |
| 33% of students scored a 4 or greater | Not Met |
Action Plan - 2024
Since Writing Effective is a primary focus of English 223, we will encourage instructors to continue to provide high quality instruction. The University Writing Council is now offering several trainings for writing-intensive faculty throughout the academic year, which will support instructors in their endeavor to support students in their writing. Some of these trainings focus specifically on the best practices for teaching students to produce effective writing and are co-sponsored through the Center for Effective Teaching.
Students will demonstrate an ability to comprehend and utilize primary and secondary sources.
Sample: Who are we looking at?
- 200 randomly-selected students with senior status, who took the CLA+ during their freshmen year.
Measure: How are we rating their performance?
- Writing Mechanics subsection of the CLA+ scored with a 6-point rubric
Target: What score did we expect?
- 95% of students will score 3 or greater (Satisfactory)
- 64% of students will score 4 or greater (Exceeds Satisfaction)
Finding: What score did our students earn?
2024
| Measure | Findings | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Writing Mechanics | 94% of students scored a 3 or greater | Not Met |
| 44% of students scored a 4 or greater | Not Met |
Action Plan - 2024
The University Writing Council offers faculty training on how to effectively teach the mechanics of academic writing, and we are collaborating with the Center for Effective Teaching to provide this training. In addition, we will continue to emphasize the importance of writing mechanics in the training provided to all faculty teaching writing intensive courses.