Submitted Fall, 2003
This was our first year to use a rubric and standardized procedures for the assessment of graduate assistants' portfolios. The results were merely a start: only three portfolios were assessed, and the scores were not particularly strong, ranging from 1.33/5 to 3.67/5. Their overall average was 2.47, almost exactly at the midpoint between high and low. However, of these three students, two had finished their programs with us and the third was only in the first year. Scores for the finishing students were significantly higher than the group overall, ranging from 2 to 4 and averaging 3.15.
| Spring 2003 Portfolio |
3 GA Portfolio Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A: CV |
B: CV
& S-AS |
C. S-AS |
D. S-A S |
E. S-AS |
F. STS |
G. STS |
H. STS |
I. SSS
& STS |
J. Part. |
| G-3S-2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
| G-3S-1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
| G-3S-3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| Total |
7 |
8 |
8 |
9 |
6 |
11 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
8 |
| Ave |
2.33 |
2.67 |
2.67 |
3 |
2 |
3.67 |
1.67 |
2.67 |
1.33 |
2.67 |
As the chart above shows, the three students assessed received the highest marks in F (use of literary knowledge, critical ability, and acquaintance with appropriate rhetorical, research, and critical practice and terminology in creation of Statement of Teaching Strategy, course syllabi, assignments, and assessment measures) and in D (student demonstrates ability to connect academic and ethical concerns). The weakest scores came in I and G, both of which relate to teaching effectiveness