Narrative:  

Troy University has a clearly defined general studies program that is reviewed regularly by the General Studies Committee, a subgroup of the University’s Undergraduate Academic Council. This committee proposes changes in the general studies program through the Undergraduate Academic Council.

The General Studies Committee is chaired by a faculty member who actively teaches in the general studies program and represents all University campuses. The committee is responsible for the development, assessment and revision of general education competencies and learning outcomes.

Two requirements will be addressed separately in this narrative: 1).The institution defines specifically which competencies are appropriate to the goals of its general education program and consistent with principles of good practice, and 2). The institution identifies measures to ensure that students have attained those competencies. The remainder of this report is organized in accordance with the two requirements.

Section I. General Studies Goals and Appropriate Competencies

This section specifically discusses the goals of the general studies program, and competencies are identified as student learning outcomes.

Part A: General Studies Program Goals

The goals of the general studies program were devised over a period of two years and involved representatives from all campuses and University components. The goals are stated as follows:

Part B: Competencies identified as Student Learning Outcomes Associated with Program Goals.

The first goal of the General Studies Program involves effective Communication, and this goal contains two Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). The operational definitions of these outcomes are taken from the Educational Testing Service materials which are part of their Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP). The MAPP test is used to assess student learning outcomes in writing, reading, critical thinking and mathematics. The speaking definitions are taken from a nationally normed rubric developed by the Los Angeles Unified School districts and the Council for Basic Education in Washington, DC.

1. Speaking
    
   • Deliver an effective original informative speech
     
   • Identify the major elements found in a public speaking outline
2. Writing
    
   • Recognize the most grammatically correct revision of a clause, sentence or group of sentences
     
   • Organize units of language for coherence and rhetorical effect
     
   • Recognize and reword figurative language
     
   • Organize elements of writing into larger units of meaning

The second goal of the General Studies Program involves Critical Thinking, and this goal contains three Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs):

1. Reading
    
   • Interpret the meaning of key terms
     
   • Recognize the primary purpose of a passage
     
   • Recognize explicitly presented information
     
   • Make appropriate inferences
     
   • Recognize rhetorical devices
2. Critical Thinking
    
   • Distinguish between rhetoric and argumentation in a piece of nonfiction prose
     
   • Recognize assumptions
     
   • Recognize the best hypothesis to account for information presented
     
   • Infer and interpret a relationship between variables
     
   • Draw valid conclusions based on information presented
3. Mathematics
    
   • Recognize and interpret mathematical terms
     
   • Read and interpret tables and graphs
     
   • Evaluate formulas
     
   • Order and compare large and small numbers
     
   • Interpret ratios, proportions, and percentages
     
   • Read scientific measuring instruments
     
   • Recognize and use equivalent mathematical formulas or expressions

Section II. Measures of the General Studies Program

This section identifies measures used to ensure that students have attained the stated competencies. In Part A, this section will discuss the use of the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) on the Troy, Ala. campus, the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Program (MAPP) on all campuses, the standardized informative speech rubric, and the standardized fundamentals of speech final exam questions as measures of the general studies program. In Part B, this section will discuss how the measures of the general studies program function to assess the program at both the course and program levels. In Part C, this section identifies assessment proficiency standards. Finally in Part D, competencies identified as student learning outcomes (SLOs) are presented with assessment results.

Part A: Measures

The General Studies Committee researched, identified and proposed the use of two nationally normed assessments for the general studies program. Additionally, the speech discipline committee proposed the adoption of the use of standardized speech rubrics and standardized final exam questions in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech. (Note that this course was identified as SPH 2241 until March, 2007 when the prefix was changed to COM by action of the Undergraduate Academic Council.)

The Undergraduate Academic Council approved the General Studies Committee’s recommendation to implement the use of the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) on the Troy Campus, the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) on all campuses, the standardized informative speech rubric, and the standardized fundamentals of speech final exam questions as assessors of the general studies program.

Part B: General Studies: Course and Program Assessments

The general studies program is assessed for college-level competencies at both the course level and the program level. Every general studies course is not assessed, but rather selected learning activities tied to broader learning contexts are assessed. For example, the broader learning context of effective communication is assessed at the course level in which public speaking skills are assessed in the COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech course using a standardized public speaking rubric and standardized final exam items. This course level assessment, in turn, supports the overall programmatic assessment of the general studies competencies.

Similarly, the CAAP, administered in first-year courses, allows for course level assessment of the broader learning contexts of critical thinking by assessing reading, math, critical thinking and writing competencies in selected history, math, biology and English general studies courses. These courses are central to the general studies program.

In broad scope, the MAPP is useful for assessing the general studies program at the program level. The MAPP is administered to rising juniors and is intended to assess the accumulation of competencies acquired over the duration of the general studies program. This test measures proficiency of academic skills such as reading, writing, critical thinking and mathematics in the context of the general studies program without assessing course-specific knowledge. The University regards the scope and diversity of its general studies program as preparing students to become effective communicators and critical thinkers who can read, speak, write, think logically and compute effectively. Table 1 demonstrates the general studies program programmatic and course-level assessments.

Part C: Proficiency Standards

The General Studies Committee identified, proposed and adopted the proficiency goals desired for the CAAP and MAPP assessment instruments, and the Undergraduate Academic Council adopted the proficiency goals recommended by the General Studies Committee. The proficiency standard statements for the past two years follow:

• 2006-2007 Proficiency Standard Statement: Every student should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
  
• 2007-2008 Proficiency Standard Statement: Seventy percent of students should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.

Part D: Student Learning Outcomes (Competencies) and Assessment Results

I. SLO1a SPEAKING:

1. Speaking SLO1a: The first SLO involved in measuring effective communication is designed to assess whether a student can deliver an original informative speech using the extemporaneous style of delivery
   
   
   i. 2006-2007 Proficiency Goal: Every student should score an average of 3 on a 4-point standard rubric.
   
   ii. 2007-2008 Proficiency Goal: Seventy percent of students should score an average of 3 on a 4- point standard rubric.
    
2. SLO1a Speaking Assessment: This SLO is measured by an oral presentation in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech that is graded using a standard rubric adopted by the speech faculty.
   
   
   i. Data Collection Procedures: The informative speech rubric assessment was first piloted at the Troy, Ala. campus during spring and fall semesters 2007. The informative speech rubric assessment was piloted on the Dothan and Montgomery, Ala. campuses Fall Semester 2007.
   
   ii. 2006-2007 Data Collection Reporting: Fundamentals of Speech, COM 2241, instructors report results using a standardized data collection form to the Director of Fundamentals of Speech. Assessment results are provided by the Department of Speech & Theatre, Chair and Director of Fundamentals of Speech to the Dean of College of Communication & Fine Arts.
   
   iii. 2007-2008 Data Collection Reporting: Fundamentals of Speech, COM 2241, instructors report results using a standardized data collection form to the Director of Fundamentals of Speech. Assessment results are provided by the School of Journalism and Communication, Director of Fundamentals of Speech to the Dean of College of Communication & Fine Arts.
    
3. SLO1a Speaking Assessment Results:
   
   
   i. Spring Semester 2007: Troy Campus
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy campus (n=247), 91 percent of general studies students in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech scored an average of 3 on a 4-point standard rubric. See Table 2.
   
   

   TABLE 2 (3.5.1)
   COMM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech Informative Speech Standardized Rubric Data Collection Summary Troy, Ala. Campus – All Sections – Spring 2007
   Instructor / Sections	Score > 3/total students	Score < 3/total students	Average on a 4 point scale
   Adams (TDAA, TFAA, TIAA)	57/67	10/67	3.16
   Diggs (TBAA, TCAA, TGAA)	64/71	7/71	3.35
   Dye (TKAA)	20/24	4/24	3.55
   Gorsevski (TUAA, TJAA, TDAB, TGAB)	84/85	1/85	3.62
   TOTAL	225/247	22/247	3.42
   Percentages	91%	9%
   Assessment results collected by the Department of Speech and Theatre.

   
   
   
   ii. Fall Semester 2007: Troy, Montgomery and Dothan Campuses
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy, Montgomery and Dothan campuses (n=437), 96 percent of general studies students in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech scored an average of 3 on a 4-point standard rubric. See Table 3.
   
   

   Table 3 (3.5.1)
   COM 2241 – Fundamentals of Speech Informative Speech Standardized Rubric Data Collection Summary Troy, Dothan & Montgomery Campuses – 22 of 27 Sections ­–  Fall 2007
   Instructor/Sections	Troy Campus	Dothan Campus	Montgomery Campus	Combined Totals
   Score > 3/total students	224/232 (97%)	39/39 (100%)	157/166 (95%)	420/437 (96%)
   Score < 3/total students	8/232 (3%)	0/39 (0%)	9/166 (5%)	17/437 (4%)
   Average on a 4 point scale	3.44	3.54	3.51	3.50
   Assessment results collected by the Department of Speech and Theatre.

   
   
   
   iii. Spring Semester 2008: Troy, Montgomery and Dothan Campuses
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy, Montgomery and Dothan campuses (n=355), 96 percent of general studies students in COM 2241 answered at least three out of five standardized items on final exams. See Table 4.
   
   

   Table 4 (3.5.1)
   COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech Informative Speech Standardized Rubric Data Collection Summary Troy, Dothan & Montgomery Campuses - 12 of 24 Sections - Spring 2008
   Instructor/Sections	Troy Campus	Dothan Campus	Montgomery Campus	Combined Totals
   Score > 3/total students	226/248 91%	42/42 100%	46/64 72%	314/354 88.7%
   Score < 3/total students	22/248 9%	0/42 0%	18/64 28%	40/354 11%
   Average on a 4 point scale	3.4	4.98	3.0	3.8

   
   As this table indicates, Troy University met and exceeded its goals for the public speaking student learning outcomes as part of its general studies programmatic assessment.
   
   

II. SLO1b SPEAKING

1. Speaking SLO1b: The second assessment used to measure effective communication assesses whether a student can identify the major elements of a speech outline.
   
   
   i. 2006-2007 Proficiency Goal: Every student should score an average of 3 on a 4-point standard rubric.
   
   ii. 2007-2008 Proficiency Goal: Seventy percent of students should score an average of 3 on a 4-point standard rubric.
   
    
2. Speaking SLO1b: This SLO is measured by a standard final exam component developed by speech faculty administered in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech.
   
   
   i. Data Collection Procedures: The speaking standardized final exam assessment was first piloted at the Troy, Ala. campus during spring and fall semesters 2007. The speaking standardized final exam assessment was piloted on the Dothan and Montgomery campuses Fall Semester 2007.
   
   ii. 2006-2007 Data Collection Reporting: COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech instructors report results using a standard data collection form to the Director of Fundamentals of Speech. Assessment results are provided by the Department of Speech and Theatre, Chair and Director of Fundamentals of Speech to the Dean of College of Communication and Fine Arts.
   
   iii. 2007-2008 Data Collection Reporting: COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech instructors report results using a standardized data collection form to the Director of Fundamentals of Speech. Assessment results are provided by the School of Journalism and Communication, Director of Fundamentals of Speech to the Dean of College of Communication & Fine Arts. (Note: A departmental realignment within the College of Communication and Fine Arts resulted in new department names. Reporting lines related to this data did not change.)
   
    
3. SLO1b Speaking Assessment Results:
   
   
   i. Spring 2007: Troy Campus
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy campus (n=248), 100 percent of general studies students in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech answered correctly at least 3 out of 5 standardized items on a final exam. See Table 5.
   
   

   Table 5 (3.5.1)
   COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech Standardized Final Exam Questions Data Collection Summary Troy Campus - All Sections - Spring 2007
   Instructor/Sections	Score > 3/total students	Score < 3/total students	Average on a 5 point scale
   Adams(TDAA, TFAA, TIAA)	67/67	0	4.9
   Diggs (TBAA, TCAA, TGAA)	71/71	0	4.9
   Dye (TKAA)	24/24	0	5.0
   Gorsevski (TUAA, TJAA, TDAB, TGAB)	86/86	0	4.83
   TOTAL	248/248	0	4.91
   Percentages	100%	0%
   Assessment results collected by the Department of Speech and Theatre.

   
   
   ii. Fall 2007: Troy, Dothan & Montgomery Campuses
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy, Dothan and Montgomery campuses (n=439), 99 percent of general studies students in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech answered correctly at least 3 out of 5 standardized items on a final exam. See Table 6.
   
   

   Table 6 (3.5.1)
   COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech Speech Standardized Final Exam Questions  Data Collection Summary Troy, Dothan & Montgomery Campuses 22 out of 27 Sections, Fall 2007
   Instructor/Sections	Troy Campus	Dothan Campus	Montgomery Campus	Combined Totals
   Score > 3/total students	232/233 99.6%	39/39 100%	164/167 98%	435/439 99%
   Score < 3/total students	1/232 .4%	0/39 0%	3/167 2%	4/439 .9%
   Average on a 4 point scale	4.96	4.84	4.64	4.83

   
   
   As this table suggests, Troy University has met and exceeded its student learning outcomes goals for the public speaking component of its general studies program assessment. The General Studies Committee is currently reviewing this data to determine if the goals for this SLO should be increased.
   
   iii. Spring 2008: Troy, Dothan & Montgomery Campuses
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy, Dothan and Montgomery campuses (n=355), 96 percent (342/355) of general studies students in COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech answered at least 3 out of 5 standardized items on final exams. See Table 7.
   
   

   Table 7 (3.5.1)
   COM 2241 Fundamentals of Speech Speech Standardized Final Exam Questions Data Collection Summary Troy, Dothan & Montgomery Campuses – 15 out of 24 Sections Spring 2008
   Instructor/Sections	Troy Campus	Dothan Campus	Montgomery Campus	Combined Totals
   Score > 3/total students	247/247 100%	42/42 100%	53/66 80%	342/355 96%
   Score < 3/total students	0/247 0%	0/42 0%	13/66 20%	13/355 3.66%
   Average on a 4 point scale	4.74	4.98	4.76	4.83

SPEAKING IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Student learning outcomes (SLOs) have been identified for the general studies program. The general studies program has instituted the use of an assessment or measure of actual public speaking skills. In the past, public speaking was measured using a multiple choice test.
   
2. Speech faculty members have adopted a standard measure of assessment to be implemented through the University.

2006-2007 Speaking Plan for Improvement

1. The student competency proficiency statement should be revised to state that 70 percent of general studies speech students will score an average of 3 on a 4-point standard rubric. A student competency proficiency expectation that states that 100 percent of general studies speech students will score an average of 3 on a 4-point scale is unrealistic. It is reasonable to expect a range of 10 percent to 30 percent of students will score below average.
   
2. The general studies revised speech competency standard should be approved by the General Studies Committee and the Undergraduate Academic Council.
   
3. Data should be reported and collected during summer semesters.
   
4. The assessment instructions to speech instructors must stress the importance of using the assessment data collection forms provided to ensure accurate reporting. Additionally, the summary data collection form should be revised to produce more detailed results.

2007-2008 Speaking Plan for Improvement

1. Monitor the results of assessments.
   
2. Streamline data collection procedures.

III. SLO 2 WRITING

1. A. Writing SLO: The third SLO involved in effective communication assesses whether a student can identify the conventions of standard written English using prose passages.
   
   
   i. 2006-2007 Proficiency Goal: Every student should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
   
   ii. 2007-2008 Proficiency Goal: Seventy percent of students should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
   
   
   
2. Writing Assessments: This SLO is measured by two nationally normed standardized writing exams:
   
   
   i. A sample of general studies students were administered the CAAP writing test module in ENG 1102 English Composition II which is usually taken in a student’s freshman year.
   
   ii. The MAPP writing test was administered to rising juniors with 60 semester hours or more (36 hours of which should be in general studies) and transfer students.
   
    
3. Writing Assessment Results:
   
   
   i. Fall 2007: CAAP Writing Assessment Results: CAAP (Troy Campus) Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy campus (n=79), 39 percent of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or an individual writing national average score of 64.2.
   
   

   Table 8 (3.5.1)
   TROY Campus	CAAP Writing
   WRITING Number of students tested	79 (100%)
   WRITING Individual National Average Score	64.2 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	31 (39%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	48 (61%)
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT

   
   ii. Fall 2007: CAAP Writing National Comparative Data: Troy general studies freshmen scored, on average, at or above the 50th percentile or an individual writing freshmen national average score of 63 during the fall 2006 and spring 2007 semesters. Freshmen scored on average just below the writing national average during summer 2006 and 2007 and fall 2007 semesters. Given the variation in Troy University student scores from semester to semester, the overall student scores over a two-year period indicate that Troy’s student performance is very close to the national average.
   
   Troy general studies sophomores scored on average just below the 50th percentile or an individual writing sophomore national average of 64.2 during from summer 2006 through fall 2007. See Table 9.
   
   

   Table 9 (3.5.1) CAAP Objective Test Norms CAAP  Writing Skills Troy University Summer 2006 through Fall 2007 Reference Group = Four-Year Public College Sophomores
   	National Average	Troy Campus	National Average	Troy Campus
   	Freshmen	Freshmen	Sophomores	Sophomores
   National Norm Scores	63		64.2
   Standard Deviation	4.8		4.8
   Number of Student Records	6670		23,270
   Number of Institutions	54		62
   Troy University Scores
   Summer 2006		61.3		64
   Standard Deviation		4.6		5.6
   Number of Student Records		8		7
   Fall 2006		64.2		59.7
   Standard Deviation		5.7		4.6
   Number of Student Records		14		15
   Spring 2007		63		N/A
   Standard Deviation		4.7		N/A
   Number of Student Records		24		4
   Summer 2007		57.9		56.8
   Standard Deviation		5.9		6.1
   Number of Student Records		18		6
   Fall 2007		61.8		63
   Standard Deviation		5.5		4.9
   Number of Student Records		18		10
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT.

   
   
   iii. Fall 2007: MAPP Writing Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students (n= 1178), 51 percent (606) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or an individual writing national average score of 114.58. This includes data results for Global Campus Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, Montgomery campus, Phenix City campus, Troy campus, and Global Campus Western Region. Data for the Global Campus Pacific and Southeast region are not available at this time, but will be collected in spring 2008. See Table 10.
   
   

   Table 10 (3.5.1)
   Troy University	MAPP Writing
   WRITING Number of students tested	1178 (100%)
   WRITING Individual National Average Score	114.58 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	606 (51%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	572 (49%)
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   iv. Fall 2007: MAPP Writing National Comparative Data
   
   Troy general studies students scored at the 50th percentile or an individual writing national average score of 114. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 126 institutions, 31 percent of the institutions scored below the 114 individual national average. A total of 38 institutions including Troy scored an individual national average of 114. See Table 11.
   
   

   Table 11 (3.5.1)
   MAPP Writing National Comparative Data
   Writing	Skills Subscores
   Mean Subscore	Writing
   	Number of Institutions	Percentage Below
   120.99 to 130    119 to 119.99 118 to 118.99    117 to 117.99      116 to 116.99 115 to 115.99    114 to 114.99    113 to 113.99    112 to 112.99 111 to 111.99 110 to 110.99 105.99 to 109.99	0 1 2 3 15 28 38 24 9 4 2 0 0	100 99 98 95 83 61 31 12 5 2 0
   Number of Institutions	126
   Mean	114.58
   Standard Deviation	1.53
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   v. Spring 2008: MAPP Writing Assessment Results
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students (n= 1045), 59 percent (621) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or an individual writing national average score of 114.4. The Troy University report includes data results for Global Campus Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, eArmyU, Montgomery campus, Troy campus, Global Campus Southeast Region and Global Campus Western Region. Comparative data on individual students’ subscores is provided. See Table 12.
   
   

   Table 12 (3.5.1)
   Troy University	MAPP Writing
   WRITING Number of students tested	1045 (100%)
   WRITING Individual National Average Score	114.4 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	621 (59%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	424 (41%)
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   vi. Spring 2008: MAPP Writing National Comparative Data
   
   Troy University general studies students scored at the 50th percentile or an individual writing national average score of 114.52. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 118 institutions, 36 percent of the institutions scored below the national average. A total of 35 institutions, including Troy, scored at the national average. Comparative data on institutional mean subscores is provided. See Table 13.
   
   

   Table 13 (3.5.1)
   MAPP Writing National Comparative Data
   Writing	Skills Subscores
   Mean Subscore	Writing
   	Number of Institutions	Percentage Below
   120.99 to 130    119 to 119.99 118 to 118.99    117 to 117.99      116 to 116.99 115 to 115.99    114 to 114.99    113 to 113.99    112 to 112.99 111 to 111.99 110 to 110.99 105.99 to 109.99	0                       100 1                       99 1                       98 2                       97 12                     86 25                     65 35                      36 26                    14 7                        8 5                        3 4                       0 0                        0
   Number of Institutions	118
   Mean	114.4
   Standard Deviation	1.59
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   

WRITING IMPROVEMENTS:

1. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) have been identified for the general studies program.
   
2. The on-line test version of the MAPP was adopted throughout the University to improve the testing administration and the data collection processes.
   
3. A proficiency standard of at or above the 50th percentile (national) for all general studies students was identified for the University.

2006-2007 Writing Plan for Improvement:

Student competency proficiency standards should be revised to state that 70 percent of general studies students should score at or above the 50th percentile. The General Studies Committee and the Undergraduate Academic Council must approve the revised writing competency standard.

2007-2008 Writing Plan for Improvement:

1. Monitor test results.
   
2. Consult with English faculty to review the ENG 1102 and 1102 English composition courses and identify strategies and initiatives to improve student writing.
   
3. Consult with the Dean of First Year Studies to offer more workshops on the subject of effective writing.

IV. SLO 3 CRITICAL THINKING

1. A. Critical Thinking SLO: The critical thinking SLO assesses whether students can draw valid conclusions from arguments presented in written passages. It is measured by both the CAAP (usually in the freshman year) and the MAPP (usually in the junior year).
   
   
   i. 2006-2007 Proficiency Standard: Every student must score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the minimum proficiency level.
   
   ii. 2007-2008 Proficiency Standard: Seventy percent of students must score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the minimum proficiency level.
   
   
2. Critical Thinking Assessments: This SLO is measured by two nationally normed standardized critical thinking exams:
   
   
   i. A sample of general studies students was administered the CAAP critical thinking test module in Biology 1100 (usually taken in a student’s freshman year).
   
   ii. The MAPP critical thinking test was administered to rising juniors with 60 semester hours or more (36 hours of which should be in general studies) and transfer students.
   
   
3. Critical Thinking Assessment Results
   
   
   i. Fall 2007: CAAP Critical Thinking Assessment Results: Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy, Ala. campus (n=117), 35 percent (n=41) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or a critical thinking national average score of 62.7. See Table 14.
   
   

   Table 14 (3.5.1)
   TROY
   CRITICAL THINKING Number of students tested	117 (100%)
   CRITICAL THINKING Individual National Average Score	62.7 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	41 (35%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	76 (65%)
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT.

   
   
   ii. Fall 2007: CAAP Critical Thinking National Comparative Data: Troy, Ala. campus general studies freshmen on average scored just below the 50th percentile or an individual critical thinking freshmen national average score of 61.4 from summer 2006 through fall 2007. Troy general studies sophomores (Troy, Ala. campus) on average scored just below the 50th percentile or an individual critical thinking sophomore national average of 62.9 from summer 2006 through fall 2007. See Table 15.
   
   

   Table 15 (3.5.1) CAAP Objective Test Norms: CAAP  Critical Thinking Troy University Summer 2006 through Fall 2007 Reference Group = Four-Year Public College Sophomores
   	National Average	Troy Campus	National Average	Troy Campus
   	Freshmen	Freshmen	Sophomores	Sophomores
   National Norm Scores	61.4		62.9
   Standard Deviation	5.5		5.3
   Number of Student Records	5194		8134
   Number of Institutions	51		61
   Troy University Scores
   Summer 2006		59		62.1
   Standard Deviation		4.6		5.6
   Number of Student Records		6		9
   Fall 2006		61.1		60.1
   Standard Deviation		6		6.7
   Number of Student Records		20		7
   Spring 2007		59.7		58.7
   Standard Deviation		5.6		5.1
   Number of Student Records		42		20
   Summer 2007		59.1		59.5
   Standard Deviation		5.3		6.2
   Number of Student Records		18		10
   Fall 2007		57.8		60.8
   Standard Deviation		5.6		4.4
   Number of Student Records		35		30
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT.

   
   iii. Fall 2007: MAPP Critical Thinking Assessment Results
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students throughout the University (n=1178), 55 percent (652) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or a critical thinking national average score of 110. This includes results for the Global Campus Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, Montgomery campus, Phenix City campus, Troy campus, and the Global Campus Western Region. See Table 16.
   
   

   Table 16 (3.5.1)
   TROY	MAPP Critical Thinking
   CRITICAL THINKING Number of students tested	1178 (100%)
   CRITICAL THINKING Individual National Average Score	110.9 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	652 (55%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	526 (45%
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   iv. Fall 2007: MAPP Critical Thinking National Comparative Data
   
   Troy students scored above the MAPP critical thinking individual national average. The individual national average for the critical thinking skills subscores was 110. Troy general studies students’ individual national average score was 111. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 126 institutions, 32 percent of all institutions scored below the 110 individual national average. A total of 15 institutions, including Troy, scored an individual national average of 111. Additionally, 61 percent of all institutions scored below Troy’s average of 111. See Table 17.
   
   

   Table 17 (3.5.1)
   Critical Thinking	Skills Subscores
   Mean Subscore	Critical Thinking
   	Number of Institutions	Percentage below
   119.99 to 130    118 to 118.99    117 to 117.99      116 to 116.99 115 to 115.99    114 to 114.99    113 to 113.99    112 to 112.99 111 to 111.99 110 to 110.99 109 to 109.99 108 to 108.99 107 to 107.99 106 to 106.99 100 to 105.99	0 1 0 1 4 3 8 17 15 37 23 9 5 3 0	100 99 99 98 95 93 87 73 61 32 13 6 2 0 0
   Number of Institutions	126
   Mean	110.90
   Standard Deviation	2.03

   
   
   v. Spring 2008: MAPP Critical Thinking Assessment Results
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at Troy (n=1045), 63% (606) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or a critical thinking national average score of 111.1. The Troy report includes data results for Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, eArmyU, Montgomery campus, Troy campus, Southeast Region and Western Region. [All Students Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Individual Students Subscores, p. 8] ) See Table 18.
   
   

   Table 18 (3.5.1)
   TROY	MAPP Critical Thinking
   CRITICAL THINKING Number of students tested	1045 (100%)
   CRITICAL THINKING Individual National Average Score	111.1 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	606 (63%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	439 (37%)

   
   
   vi. Spring 2008: MAPP Critical Thinking National Comparative Data
   
   Troy students scored above the MAPP critical thinking individual national average. The individual national average for the critical thinking skills subscores was 111.1. Troy general studies students’ individual national average score was 112.75. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 118 institutions, 47% of all institutions scored below the national average. A total of 25 institutions, including Troy, scored Troy’s average. Additionally, 64% of all institutions scored below Troy’s average. All Students Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores. See Table 19.
   
    

   Table 19 (3.5.1)
   Critical Thinking	Skills Subscores
   Mean Subscore	Critical Thinking
   	Number of Institutions	Percentage Below
   119.99 to 130    118 to 118.99    117 to 117.99      116 to 116.99 115 to 115.99    114 to 114.99    113 to 113.99    112 to 112.99 111 to 111.99 110 to 110.99 109 to 109.99 108 to 108.99 107 to 107.99 106 to 106.99 100 to 105.99	0 1 0 1 2 4 9 25 20 25 17 7 5 2 0	100 99 99 98 97 93 86 64 47 26 12 6 2 0 0
   Number of Institutions	118
   Mean	111.18
   Standard Deviation	2.04
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

CRITICAL THINKING IMPROVEMENTS

1. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) have been identified for the general studies program.
   
2. The on-line test version of the MAPP was adopted across the University to improve the testing administration and the data collection.
   
3. A proficiency standard of at or above the 50th percentile (national) for all general studies students was identified for the University.

2006-2007 Critical Thinking Plan for Improvement:

Student competency proficiency standards should be revised to state that 70% of general studies students should score at or above the 50th percentile. The General Studies Committee and the Undergraduate Academic Council must approve the revised critical thinking competency standard.

2007-2008 Critical Thinking Plan for Improvement:

1. Monitor test results.
   
2. General Studies Committee will research initiatives to motivate students to perform their best on the test.

IV. SLO 4 Reading

1. SLO 4 Reading: The Reading SLO is designed to assess whether students can assess the contextual meaning of written text. It is measured by both the CAAP (usually in the freshman year) and the MAPP (usually in the junior year). Students must score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the minimum proficiency level.
   
   
   i. 2006-2007 Proficiency Goal: Every student should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
   
   ii. 2007-2008 Proficiency Goal: Seventy percent of students should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
   
   
2. Reading Assessments: This SLO is measured by two nationally normed standardized reading exams:
   
   
   i. A sample of general studies students was administered the CAAP, the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency, reading test module in History 1102 Western Civilization II and History 1112 U.S. since 1877.
   
   ii. . The MAPP, the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress, reading test was administered to rising juniors with 60 semester hours or more (36 hours of which should be in general studies) and transfer students.
   
   
3. C. Reading Assessment Results:
   
   
   i. Fall 2007: CAAP Reading Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy campus (n=102), 40% (n=41) of a sample of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or a reading national average score of 62.6. See Table 20.
   
   

   Table 20 (3.5.1)
   Troy Campus	CAAP Reading
   READING Number of students tested	102 (100%)
   READING Individual National Average Score	62.6 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	41 (40%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	61 (60%)
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT.

   
   
   ii. Fall 2007: CAAP Reading National Comparative Data:
   
   Troy general studies freshmen (Troy Campus) scored at the 50th percentile or an individual reading freshmen national average score of 61 Summer 2007. Troy general studies freshmen (Troy Campus) scored below the 50th percentile or an individual reading freshmen national average score of 61 Fall 2007.*For Summer 2006, Fall 2006 and Spring 2007, sample sizes were too small to produce statistically significant results.
   
   Troy general studies sophomores (Troy campus) scored above the 50th percentile or an individual reading sophomore national average of 62.8 Spring 2007 semester. Troy general studies sophomores (Troy Campus) scored below the 50th percentile or an individual reading sophomore national average of 62.8 Fall 2006, 2007 and Summer 2007 semesters. See Table 21.
   
   
   
   iii. Fall 2007: MAPP Reading Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students (n=1178), 49% (n=579) general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or a reading national average score of 118.5. This data includes results for the Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, Montgomery campus, Phenix City campus, Troy campus, and the Western Region. See Table 22.
   
   

   Table 22 (3.5.1)
   Troy	MAPP Reading
   READING Number of students tested	1178 (100%)
   READING Individual National Average Score	118.49 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	579 (49%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	599 (51%)
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   iv. Fall 2007: MAPP Reading National Comparative Data
   
   Troy students scored below the MAPP reading individual national average. The individual national average for the reading skills subscores was 118. Troy general studies students’ individual national average score was 117. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 126 institutions, 40% of all institutions scored below the 118 individual national average. A total of 20 institutions, including Troy, scored an individual national average of 117. See Table 23.
   
   

   

   
   
   v. Spring 2008: MAPP Reading Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students (n=1045), 56% (n=588) general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or a reading national average score of 118.2. The report includes data results for Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, eArmyU, Montgomery campus, Troy campus, Southeast Region and Western Region. See Table 24. All Students Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Individual Students Subscores.
   
   

   Table 24 (3.5.1)
   Troy	MAPP Reading
   READING Number of students tested	1045 (100%)
   READING Individual National Average Score	118.2 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	588 (56%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	457 (44%)
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   vi. Spring 2008: MAPP Reading National Comparative Data
   
   Troy students scored above the MAPP reading individual national average. The individual national average for the reading skills subscores was 118.2. Troy general studies students’ individual national average score was 118.51. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 118 institutions, 39% of all institutions scored below the national average. A total of 28 institutions, including Troy, scored at the national average. See Table 25. All Students Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores.
   
   

   

Reading Improvements:

1. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) have been identified for the general studies program.
   
2. The on-line test version of the MAPP was adopted across the University to improve the testing administration and the data collection.
   
3. A desired standard of at or above the 50th percentile (national) for all general studies students was identified for the University.

2006-2007 Reading Plan for Improvement:

1. Student desired competency goals should be revised to state that 70% of general studies students should score at or above the 50th percentile. The General Studies Committee and the Undergraduate Academic Council must approve the revised reading competency standard.
   
2. The Reading Discipline Committee decided to change the course administration of the CAAP Reading module to address the small sample issue. Therefore, the committee decided to administer the CAAP Reading module in English 1112 instead of History 1112. This change should produce a larger sample size of freshmen and sophomores. This change took effect beginning spring 2007.
   
3. A committee of reading content specialists will be formed to research the development, design and implementation of an on-line remedial reading tutorial to assist students scoring below the 50th percentile on the CAAP and/or MAPP.

2007-2008 Reading Plan for Improvement:

1. Monitor test results.
   
2. Consult with Dean of First Year Studies to design initiatives to improve students’ reading skills.
   
3. The general studies committee will research initiatives designed to motivate students to perform their best on the test.
   
4. “Creating a Culture of Reading” has been adopted as Troy University’s Quality Enhancement Plan.

IV. SLO 5 MATHEMATICS

1. SLO 5 Math: The mathematics SLO is designed to assess how well students can solve mathematical problems. As with the reading and critical thinking SLO’s, the math SLO is assessed twice, both by the CAAP (generally in the freshman year) and the MAPP (generally in the junior year).
   
   
   i. 2006-2007 Proficiency Goal: Every student should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
   
   ii. 2007-2008 Proficiency Goal: Seventy percent of students should score at or above the 50th percentile to achieve the desired proficiency level.
    
2. Math Assessments: This SLO is measured by two nationally normed standardized reading exams:
   
   
   i. A sample of general studies students was administered the CAAP, the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency, math test module in Math 1110 Finite Math and Math 1112 Pre-Calculus Algebra.
   
   ii. The MAPP, the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress, math test was administered to rising juniors with 60 semester hours or more (36 hours of which should be in general studies) and transfer students.
   
    
3. Math Assessment Results:
   
   
   i. Fall 2007: CAAP Math Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students at the Troy Campus (n=180), 38% (n=69) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or an individual national math average score of 58.1. See Table 26.
   
   

   Table 26 (3.5.1)
   TROY Campus	CAAP Math
   MATH  Number of students tested	180 (100%)
   MATH  Individual National Average	Score 58.1 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	69 (38%)
   Number of students who scored below the national	111 (62%)
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT.

   
   
   ii. Fall 2007: CAAP Math National Comparative Data:
   
   Troy general studies freshmen (Troy campus) scored above the 50th percentile or an individual math freshmen national average score of 57.9 fall 2006. Troy general studies freshmen (Troy campus) scored below the 50th percentile summer 2006, spring, summer and fall 2007.
   Troy general studies sophomores (Troy campus) scored above the 50th percentile or an individual math sophomore national average of 58.5 from summer 2006 through fall 2007. See Table 27.
   
   

   Table 27 (3.5.1) CAAP Objective Test Norms CAAP  Math
   Troy University Summer 06 through Fall 2007
   Reference Group = Four-Year Public College Sophomores
   		National Average	Troy Campus	National Average	Troy Campus
   		Freshmen	Freshmen	Sophomores	Sophomores
   National Norm Scores		57.9		58.5
   Standard Deviation		3.3		4
   Number of Student Records		4958		21,476
   Number of Institutions		45		58
   Troy University Scores
   Summer 2006			54.7		54.9
   Standard Deviation			2.4		3
   Number of Student Records			22		14
   Fall 2006			58.7		57.1
   Standard Deviation			2.8		3
   Number of Student Records			26		32
   Spring 2007			56		55.8
   Standard Deviation			3.3		2.9
   Number of Student Records			60		15
   Summer 2007			55.6		55.8
   Standard Deviation			3.1		2.9
   Number of Student Records			25		8
   Fall 2007			57.3		55.8
   Standard Deviation			2.9		2.8
   Number of Student Records			19		25
   Assessment results collected from CAAP reports provided by ACT.

   
   
   iii. Fall 2007: MAPP Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students (n=1178), 38% (n=448) of general studies students scored at or above the 50th percentile or an individual national average score of 113. This includes data results for the Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, Montgomery campus, Phenix City campus, Troy campus, and the Western Region. See Table 28.
   
   

   Table 28 (3.5.1)
   TROY – All Campuses
   MATH  Number of students tested	1178 (100%)
   MATH  Individual National Average Score	113 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	448 (38%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	730 (62%)
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   iv. Fall 2007: MAPP National Comparative Data:
   
   Troy students scored below the MAPP math individual national average. The individual national average for the math skills subscores was 113.8. Troy general studies students’ individual national average score was 112.5. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 126 institutions, 31% of all institutions scored below the 113 individual national average. A total of 22 institutions, including Troy, scored an individual national average of 112. See Table 29.
   
   

   

   
   
   v. Spring 2008: MAPP Assessment Results:
   
   Out of a sample of Troy University students (n=1045), 42% (n=441) of general studies students scored below the 50th percentile or an individual national average score of 113.3. 2008. The report includes data results for Atlantic Region, Dothan campus, eCampus, eArmyU, Montgomery campus, Troy campus, Southeast Region and Western Region. See Table 30. All Students Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Individual Students Subscores.
   
   

   Table 30 (3.5.1)
   TROY – All Campuses
   MATH  Number of students tested	1045 (100%)
   MATH  Individual National Average Score	113.3 (50th percentile)
   Number of students who scored at or above the national average	441 (42%)
   Number of students who scored below the national average	604 (57%)
   Assessment results collected from MAPP reports provided by ETS.

   
   
   vi. Spring 2008: MAPP National Comparative Data
   
   Troy students scored below the MAPP math individual national average. The individual national average for the math skills subscores was 113.3. Troy general studies students’ individual national average score was 112.42. Data taken from All Students Master’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores revealed that out of 118 institutions, 36% of all institutions scored below the national average. A total of 23 institutions, including Troy, scored Troy’s score. See Table 31. ] All Students Master's (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Distribution of Institutional Mean Subscores.
   
    

   

Math Improvements:

1. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) have been identified for the general studies program.
   
2. The on-line test version of the MAPP was adopted across the University to improve the testing administration and the data collection.
   
3. A proficiency standard of, at, or above the 50th percentile (national) for all general studies students was identified for the University.

2006-2007 Math Plan for Improvement:

1. Student competency proficiency standards should be revised to state that 70% of general studies students should score at or above the 50th percentile. The General Studies Committee and the Undergraduate Academic Council must approve the revised math competency standard.
2. The Math Discipline Committee discovered a content validity problem related to the CAAP module administered in Math 1110 (Finite Math). This content validity issue could partly explain students’ test scores. The Math Discipline Committee decided to change the course administration of the CAAP Math module. The committee decided that the CAAP should not be administered in Math 1110 (Finite Math). However, the CAAP Math module should be administered in Math 1112 (Pre-Calculus Algebra) only. This change should take effect Fall 2008.
   
   
   Rationale:
   
   Math 1110 The CAAP math assessment measure lacks content validity for the general studies program. In Math 1110 (Finite Math), topics include a survey of logic, sets, counting, permutations, combinations, basic probability, an introduction to statistics, and matrices and their applications to Markov chains and decision theory. Only 9-14% of the CAAP math test questions (Pre-algebra) pertain to Finite Math. For example, 51% of the CAAP math test questions pertain to College Algebra (40%) and Trigonometry (11%). Another 14-18% of the CAAP math test questions pertain to Coordinate Geometry. College Algebra, Trigonometry and Coordinate Algebra are not taught in Math 1100 (Finite Math).
   
   Math 1112 In Math 1112 Pre-Calculus Algebra, topics include the algebra of functions, including polynomial, rational, exponential, and logarithmic functions. The course also contains systems of equations and inequalities, linear and quadratic equations and inequalities, graphs of polynomials, and the binomial theory. Again, a significant portion of the CAAP measures skills not taught in Math 1112 (Pre-Calculus Algebra). For example, 14-18% of the CAAP math test pertains to Coordinate Geometry and 11% of the test pertains to Trigonometry.
   
   
3. MAPP scores will be recorded on student transcripts as an attempt to motivate students to perform their best on the test. However, student test results will not be used as a graduation requirement.

2007-2008 Math Plan for Improvement:

1. Monitor test results.
   
2. Administer CAAP in Math 1112 (Pre-Calculus Algebra) only in Fall 2008.
   
3. Math Discipline Committee should review the Math 1112 (Pre-Calculus Algebra) course for specific content and learning outcomes.
   
4. Math Discipline Committee, in collaboration with the General Studies Committee, should review student learning expectations against benchmarks of aspirational peer institutions. In particular, the Math Emporium at Virginia Polytechnical Institute and the Math Lab at the University of Alabama should be studied to identify ways to enhance instructor teaching, and student learning, of math at Troy University. See Table 32.

Troy University identifies competencies and student learning outcomes for its general studies program at a programmatic level. University students, at all Alabama campuses and throughout the Global Campus sites, are assessed via some or all of the metrics used by the General Studies Committee to measure these competencies. This general studies program assessment is an active one with forward looking plans for improvement, based on the assessed results as well as anticipated new categories of learning which are important to the University’s expectations of this program. While specific metrics suggest that the University has not met its own self-defined standards for student learning in general students, it should be noted that the University identifies and measures these competencies as a means for institutional improvement.

Troy University is in compliance with this section.