Our working group accepted the 3 condensed and newly revised LOs in this domain as a given, although we found them to be extremely dense. We had a lengthy discussion with Pat Donahue who provided clarification.
We supported a process that mirrors the one outlined by the Information Literacy group in which one product would be collected from each course listed as an H. In this product students should engage in analysis that reflects one or more of the LOs. A randomized sample would then be created of the products collected.
We agreed that, while products could and should vary per discipline, a reflective essay in which students engage in analysis that targets the designated outcomes would be a reasonable choice.
A Moodle Course site created for this purpose.
A committee consisting of faculty that teach H courses would assess the random representative sample of the product using a rubric constructed for this purpose. It was suggested that the AAC&U VALUE rubrics would be a good source of material for such an instrument (http://www.aacu.org/value). Moodle has a grading function in which it is possible to construct and employ a rubric.
Data generated could be analyzed by the review committee and general observations based on this analysis could then be shared with all instructors
The committee could assess samples over a three-year period. It was suggested that one of the 3 LOs could be the focus of assessment each year.
Regardless of what form this process takes, it should be inclusive and respectful of our colleagues’ diverse areas of expertise and related methodologies. Those who participate in the process should be recognized for this service. Indeed, such service should be incentivized (course release? service relief?).