First-Year Seminar Assessment and Next Steps 2014 - 2015

First-Year Seminar 2014 1

In the 2012 autumn semester the International Affairs Scholars First-Year Seminar was first implemented with the goals of introducing students to the University Honors and Scholars programs, helping students adjust to campus, and exposing students to the theme of internationalization. After an initial assessment of the seminar in 2013, major changes were made for the 2014 autumn term, which include: the incorporation of reading assignments, the use of the Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (Jones & Abes, 2014) to discuss social identity, more reliance on peer discussion and individual reflection, and reference to United Nations Millennium Goals for Sustainable Development for discussion of recent world events. This 2014 autumn term was also the first in which the course we concluded the course with a mandatory assessment taken by all enrolled students.

These changes have resulted in more reliable data which indicate that students are being challenged in significant ways and leaving this course with a new understanding of themselves, others, and the world around them. The 2014 assessment indicates that compared to last year students are more:

Confident of what is being asked of them in the seminar and better understand its goals. Comfortable speaking to their own social identities. Capable of explaining and giving examples of the challenges of globalization. Aware of their daily actions and beliefs.

Additionally, according to the students the instructors were more approachable and engaging.

These results are encouraging and indicate that the seminar course has progressed drastically in just a short three years. At the same time, there is still room for improvement next year. Some areas that could be focused on next year include the following:

Stressing the difference between social identities and character traits. Many students demonstrated confusion on how the two are different.

Continuing to improve upon the ways in which the concepts of internationalization and globalization are simultaneously intertwined and distinct. This is by far the greatest room for improvement.

When speaking of the challenges the world faces from globalization, many students tended to blame the developing world for such things as environmental degradation and over-population. It is important to approach these topics from a systemic view and help students understand how the legacies of war, colonialism, and irresponsible capitalism have had a significant role in creating and perpetuating these problems.

This report is designed to both showcase our students accomplishments and to push us towards better practice as Scholars coordinators. Thank you for reading and your continued investment in our students.

Travis H. Olson Graduate Administrative Assistant International Affairs Scholars Program

Introduction and Executive Summary

First-Year Seminar 2014 2

The 2014 IA First-Year Seminar utilized the following learning objectives:

Learn about resources that the Honors & Scholars Center and campus provide by identifying the expectations of being an IA Scholar, recognizing the five pillars of success from the University Honors & Scholars Center, and locating campus resources and opportunities related to international interests.

Develop critical thinking skills through producing reflective writing and critically analyzing current events and global trends.

Build close relationships with the IA Scholars staff and other IA students.

IA Students who completed the Seminar replied in the following manner when asked whether they disagreed or agreed with the statement, The course instructors clearly explained the goals and expectations of the Seminar.

Figure 1.1: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

Descriptive Stat 2013 2014 Mean 3.08 3.86 Med. 3 4 Std. Dev.

1.31 0.89

* 2013 n = 52; 2014 n = 118

Course Objectives

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2013*

2014*

These results indicate a strong positive growth over the past two years. At the end of the 2014 IA Seminar, students were significantly more likely to believe that the course goals and expectations had been clearly explained.

First-Year Seminar 2014 3

The second week of class IA scholars began to interrogate how US citizens come to know the rest of the world through examining inconsistencies in domestic and international covers of Time Magazine. This class was organized around the following student learning outcomes:

Compare covers from domestic and international editions of Time Magazine from the same weeks.

Hypothesize why the covers are similar/different utilizing the concepts of national/regional/state perspective and cultural context.

The students answered the assessment question, What is one way in which where we live impacts what we know about the rest of the world? in some of the following ways.

Figure 2.1: Common Themes Ranked by Prevalence (n = 102)

Common Themes in Responses* n %

1. The media filters out relevant information and/or the information it provides is biased. 41 34.8

2. Our local cultures and relationships influence what information we see as credible. 18 15.3

3. Parochialism, ignorance, and/or narcissism are problems in US media and/or society at large. 16 13.6

4. An individuals level of societal privilege impacts what they may think is important and potentially their willingness/ability to seek out new information. 8

6.8

5. Cultural and/or geographic isolation makes gathering reliable and relevant information hard. 7 5.9

6. The media makes obtaining objective information difficult. 5 4.2 7. What information is useful to people of different cultures/nationalities is relative. 2 1.7 8. Response does not meaningfully answer the question. 5 4.2 *Some responses coded underneath multiple themes.

Figure 2.2: Most Commonly Used Words in Responses

Understanding Perspective and Context

First-Year Seminar 2014 4

Figure 2.3: Examples of Responses in Select Themes*

Theme Common Themes in Responses

1.

We live in the United States, and obviously that leads to certain prejudices and stereotypes that we form as a culture. However I also feel that there is a certain level of awareness that we share as a society that many people neglect. In this course I felt that at times we were chastised for being Americans, which I feel is undue. Of course we can become more worldly as a society, but a lack thereof does not make us ignorant, but rather centered on the issues most relevant to our lives.

1.

Living in a first world, highly developed country with the freedom of press allows us to gain access to an abundance of media coverage. However, as our media is often highly biased and skewed, it can be difficult to uncover the truth about global events, and realize the full impact which movements abroad can have on our nation.

2.

Where you live can influence what you know about another place or type of person in the world. You grow up with the perspective of the people around you, so if they think something about a certain place or person, it is very likely that you will think that, even if it isn't necessarily true. Socialization like this can lead to Single Stories.

2.

Every piece of information we receive is, for the most part, filtered through a Westernized lens. So often we analyze cultures that are nothing like our own from the context of Western ideals regardless of their cultures ideals. For example, many parts of the Middle East reject Western culture, from our perspective this might be weird or unethical, but in their world, it is normal.

3.

I think that we live in an incredibly individualistic society and so because of that and what we as people tend to be interested in hearing - issues that directly affect our daily lives - is the type of information that media sources feed to us so we will listen.

3.

We compare our circumstances to other places. In America, if a country mirrors us in any way that is seen as good, even though there could be a way to do it better.

4.

Being in a well-off setting with students of similar socio-economic standings does create a secure bubble around our environment. The information stressed in today's news and media revolves increasingly around what happens only on US soil or to US citizens. Because of this, we are limited in was we can quickly gain understanding on - it is our own personal responsibility to teach ourselves about current stressors in the global spheres, whether it be through internet searches, or discovery of new sources of information.

4.

Being college students, we are introduced to a lot of new topics and ideas. It is imperative that we know where to get our information, knowing what a reliable source is and also to know how to interpret media sources.

7.

Depending on where we are situated, multiple factors change. Some things that are relevant to our culture and beliefs may change when we are in other countries, such as language, identities, and interests. Also, where we live depends on what kind of media is consumed on a daily basis. For someplace like the US, this means a lot of issues in nations further away tend to be over simplified presented in a way the sells to the public.

*Some responses minimally edited for clarity.

Overall, the vast majority of students offered responses that indicate that they have meaningfully engaged with the concepts of perspective and context and the question of how the media both enables us and limits us from learning about the rest of the world. While some students felt they were chastised for their beliefs or views, even the majority of those who felt uncomfortable at times took this class as an opportunity to challenge their previously formed beliefs, reaffirm some of what they already knew, and accept a more nuanced, problematized, and relative understanding of the world and how we come to know it.

First-Year Seminar 2014 5

In the third week of the Seminar, students were encouraged to continue examining how they understand themselves and the world around them through a module that utilizes the Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI). The RMMDI is flexible tool that allows both students who have never engaged in conversations about social difference and those who are seasoned experts on the topic to reflect and share how they move through the world. This class session was organized around the following learning outcomes:

Explain what social identities are and give examples of some that are considered normal and some that are often discriminated against in the U.S. context.

Map out some salient identities on your own MMDI model and show peers how these identities have impacted your personal experiences.

Hypothesize what social identities would become more salient to you if you were to travel to a country such as India that is racially, ethnically, and religiously different from the United States.

When students were asked, What are three social identities that became more salient for you during this course? they answered in the following ways.

Figure 3.1: Most Common Responses (n = 309)

* Answers suggested students were conflating these two terms. ** A high number of answers did not deal with social identities, but with personality traits. Includes state and hometown Based on the Seminars syllabus, it makes sense that these are the social identities that became most salient for many students during the span of the course. It is encouraging that students applied the course material to so many different aspects of their social selves; however, the high level of responses that referred to personal characteristics instead of social identities could indicate that it is necessary to revisit this topic later in the semester.

Social Identities in an International Context

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

First-Year Seminar 2014 6

The second unit of the Seminar focuses in on defining some key concepts for students and applying this knowledge to various academic and personal situations. This is accomplished through a combination of readings, lectures, and guest speakers.

For the purposes of our class, Kofi Anans 1990 text We the Peoples was used to loosely define the key differences between internationalization and globalization. While neither Anan nor the course instructors are interested in crafting a concrete definition of each term, we loosely described the two terms in the following manner: Internationalization

Relates to the major international trends of the first half of the 20th Century, including, but not limited to, nationalism, (de)colonialization, and reducing trade barriers.

Typically involves state sanctioned actions that impact the structure, actions, and services provided by the state, such as formal treaties and trade agreements, immigration programs, and concerted efforts to change social trends and values.

Globalization

Broadly relates to the trends and challenges faced in the second half of the 20th Century and today, including, but not limited to, civil violence and terrorism, mass communication, mass travel and immigration, global pandemics, and free and open markets.

Examples of globalization often revolve around individuals and groups bypassing national governments and directly interacting with each other, examples may include recruiting terrorist networks, building economic partnerships, or designing media for a global audience.

During these class sessions students were asked to:

Recognize that internationalization and globalization are not always synonymous. Distinguish how the two processes can be understood as separate, yet related,

phenomena.

These student learning outcomes were measured with the prompt, In one or two sentences state what you think a key difference between internationalization and globalization is.

The answers were then read and coded as incorrect, partially correct, or correct according to how closely they aligned with the definitions above. It was not expected that students remember all the points of each definition or articulate their answer in the same language as the text. Rather, we were looking for answers that spoke to the general spirit of each of these terms as they were presented by Kofi Anan in the text.

Internationalization and Globalization

First-Year Seminar 2014 7

The responses from the students broke down in the following manner after coding:

Figure 4.1: Responses Coded for Accuracy (n = 115)

Given the relatively complex nature of defining globalization it makes sense that the results of this class session are less definitive. Students often took issue with the instructors and the reading both failing to give one solid definition of what globalization and internationalization are. It is possible that for the majority of students this is the first time they have been asked to identify and use such abstract and fluid concepts. This reality needs to be addressed more readily.

Obviously, we would like to see more students leave the course with a solid grasp on the basic ideas surrounding both of these terms. In future years this may be accomplished through:

Spending more time on the topic and/or revisiting it throughout the course. Utilizing more concrete examples or case studies of what internationalization and

globalization are and are not. Using another reading or supplementing the current reading with another that

approaches the topic from a different perspective. Bringing in a guest speaker or speakers who teach or organize around these concepts in

their daily work and/or scholarship.

Responses Coded for Accuracy Correct 21 Partially Correct 48 Incorrect 37 Response of I dont know 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Correct Par?al Incorrect "I don't know."

First-Year Seminar 2014 8

After defining internationalization and globalization, the class turned to exploring some of the key challenges that the United States and the rest of the world face because of the ways life is changing across the world. These topics were approached by two popular readings by the New York Times author Thomas Freidman and class discussion.

Our class focused on three intertwined aspects of globalization per Freidmans analysis:

Global Flattening

The process of most of the Earths economies converging through the rise of previously unindustrialized nations and the removal of previous barriers to economic activity.

Global Warming

The process of global climate change that has been set in motion by the burning of fossil fuels and release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Global Crowding

The worlds increasing population that demands more resources as it not only grows, but also becomes more affluent and desires the luxuries developed Western nations take for granted.

Through reading and discussing selections of Friedmans work, students were expected to:

Recognize the processes of global flattening, warming, and crowding. Distinguish how the three issues are both separate phenomena and interdependent.

These outcomes were measured through the question, Pick one of the three major problems with globalization we spoke of in seminar and describe it in two to three sentences.

Figure 5.1: Responses Displayed by Content (n = 118)

Challenge Associated Causes and Effects Cause: Expansion of economic activity and technology (6) Cause: Use of non-renewable resources (13) Effect: Deterioration of the Earths resources (5)

Hot (n = 35, 30%)

Effect: Sea level rise (5) Cause: Increased access to technology (14) Effect: Increased economic accessibility (6) Effect: Better communication (5) Flat (n = 27, 23.3%)

Effect: Higher risk of disease (5) Cause: Fewer resources (3) Cause: Increases in healthcare tech. (4) Effect: Resources become less available (15) Crowded (n = 46, 40%)

Effect: Higher risk of disease (8) Other (n = 8, 7%) Responses did not fit one of the three given themes

Challenges of Globalization

First-Year Seminar 2014 9

The student responses measuring this student learning outcome indicate that the majority of first-year IA students are capable of defining Friedmans three challenges globalization poses. Approximately 93% of students were able to give a satisfactory answer to the assessment prompt. Many students in their descriptions of the three challenges also offered explanations of causes and effects related to these phenomena, an additional testament to their mastery of the content area that is displayed in the figure above. Unexpectedly, a noticeable majority of students focused on the challenge of global crowding, with many writing about the twin problems of urbanization and rapid population growth in developing nations. While there is not enough information to give a definitive answer as to why this challenge received so much attention in the assessment, it is worthwhile to note that this is the only one of the three that was explicitly described as occurring primarily in the Global South. The particular attention given to this issue, and the tone that is suggested by some of the responses, indicates that some students may have fallen into the pattern of blaming the underdeveloped world for its problems, ignoring the historical context of colonialism, war, and irresponsible capitalism that has set up these regions for overpopulation. In future classes it may useful to incorporate the following ideas into a discussion of Thomas Friedmans Hot, Flat, and Crowded:

After the basic ideas behind global flattening, warming, and crowding have been covered, discuss how each of these three challenges manifests in both developed and underdeveloped nations.

A classroom activity for addressing this idea could include splitting the class up into three groups and assigning each group one of the three challenges. Ask each group to defend why their global challenge is the most pressing concern. During the activity debrief, discuss what implicit ethical judgments were made in the class discussion. Where is blame placed? What effects are considered the most threatening? From what perspective are these challenges approached?

Ask students to go beyond Friedmans text. What problems are not included within the three categories of global flattening, warming, and crowding? Whose interests are represented in the text and whose are left absent?

First-Year Seminar 2014 10

Over the course of the semester the students engaged in many different types of activities and read various types of texts. For the previous two years we have asked the students to list at least one and up to three of their favorite activities. The results of this question and a short description of the most popular classroom activities follow.

Figure 6.1: 2013 Favorite Classroom Activities (n = 145)

Figure 6.2: 2014 Favorite Classroom Activities (n = 302)

The past two years the TED Talk Danger of a Single Story by Chimamanda Adiche has remained the most popular in-class activity by a wide margin, likely due to Adiches unique ability to make our complex course material accessible and digestible in such a short amount of time. Similarly, guest speakers took the second place in both years, indicating that students enjoy a variety of presenters in the course.

31

24

22 15

15

12

11

8 7

Video: Danger of a Singe Story by Chimamanda Adiche Guest Speaker: Social Iden??es

Video: How Not to Write about Africa

Model UN Class Project

Other (All ac?vi?es with responses less than 5) Win as Much as You Can Simula?on

Guest Speaker: Career Center and Finding Internships Guest Speaker: How to Study Abroad

78

55

50

32

27

26

18 8 6

2 Video: Danger of a Singe Story by Chimamanda Adiche Guest Speakers: Globaliza?on in Our Personal Lives (Current HESA graduate students) Win as Much as You Can Simula?on

Discussion: Ebola in the Media

Discussion: Women and Islam (Reading and Video) Discussion: Perspec?ve, Context, and Media (Ac?vity with Time Magazine covers) Find a Non-US News Story Online

Discussion: Kofi Anan's Defini?on of Globaliza?on

Course Activities

First-Year Seminar 2014 11

The third favorite activity has shifted from another video, a reading of the classic poem How to Write About Africa by Binyavanga Wainaina, to the Win as Much as You Can Simulation. While the simulation was used in both years, the video of Wainainas poem was dropped in 2014 due to time restrictions. Due to its popularity last year, it may be worthwhile to reincorporate it into the course.

Overall, in refining next years syllabus the following should be considered:

Activities that allow additional voices and perspectives into the classroom, such as TED Talks, guest speakers, and artistic readings are both popular and invaluable for presenting the complexity of the global issues that are being discussing.

Discussion topics that had the potential to be controversial were popular amongst students in 2014.

Classes that had a lecture design were the least popular. While it may be worthwhile to look into more interactive ways to deliver this content, these were also some of the most intellectually demanding classes and other teaching methods may not work as well.

The 2014 Fall Term is the first time that readings were included as a required part of the IA Seminar experience. All of the readings were between 10 and 15 pages and were only due on days that writing assignments were not being collected.

Students were asked the following questions regarding the length, the perceived usefulness, and their enjoyment of the readings:

First, The readings were of appropriate length for a one-credit hour course.

Figure 6.3: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree (n = 117)

Descriptive Stats Mean 3.72 Med. 4 Std. Dev.

0.940

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2014

Course Readings

First-Year Seminar 2014 12

Second, The readings expanded my understanding of the topics being covered in class.

Figure 6.4: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree (n = 117)

Descriptive Stats Mean 3.78 Med. 4 Std. Dev.

0.952

Third, the students were asked to list up to two of their favorite reading, which led to the following results:

Figure 6.5: Favorite Readings (n = 182)

The data suggest that the introduction of readings to the seminar course greatly improved its utility for students. In previous years, students reported feeling as if they did not have enough information to meaningfully discuss current events or international affairs. Some students still reported feeling this way in 2014, but having a central text for most classes allowed for the conversation to be grounded in a common language that most students grasped.

The only text that should possibly be removed according to students is Kofi Anans We the Peoples. This text appears to not have been as useful to students based upon the responses here and above. Another text that more clearly and easily explains some of the differences between mid-Twentieth Century internationalization and late-Twentieth and Twenty-First Century globalization should be sought out and possibly considered.

47

43 40

27

16 9

"Hot, Flat and Crowded" Friedman

"No God but God" Aslan

"What Language is That?" Akpan

"Affluenza" Graf, Wann, and Naylor

"It's a Flat World Agerall" Friedman

"We the Peoples" Anan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly Disagree (1)

Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2014

First-Year Seminar 2014 13

A central goal of the IA Seminar is to help students develop the capacity to reflect upon their beliefs and daily actions. Through strengthening these capacities, students will be able to actively construct their collegiate education according to their values and desires.

This important outcome is measured using two questions, one that addresses values and another that addresses actions. The first is, This course caused me to examine my personal values. Students answered in the following manner to this first question.

Figure 7.1: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

The second is, This course caused me to examine my daily actions. which yielded the following results.

Figure 7.2: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

While the rating for examining daily actions decreased slightly this year and remains historically lower, this measure is offset by students greater likelihood to examine personal values. These measurements are testaments to the seminars value, but in the future moving to a direct assessment of reflective activity involving students writing would be useful. This will be more easily done with the incorporation of ePortfolios into the course - a tool that may also help students physically represent how their actions are changing, leading to higher scores in both measurements.

Descriptive Stats 2013 2014 Mean 3.63 3.80 Med. 4 4 Std. Dev.

1.22 1.05

Descriptive Stats 2013 2014 Mean 3.66 3.51 Med. 4 4 Std. Dev.

1.41 1.17

Measures of Student Self-Reflection

0 10 20 30 40 50

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

I am unsure.

(3)

Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2013 (n=30)

2014 (n=117)

0 10 20 30 40 50

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

I am unsure.

(3)

Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2013 (n=30)

2014 (n=117)

First-Year Seminar 2014 14

The course instructors strive to make a welcoming and engaging environment for all the students in International Affairs Scholars. Unfortunately, last year some students were turned off by the setting of the seminar and perceived IA as unwelcoming because of the large class size. This is an area that the instructors worked hard to improve in 2014 and the results indicate that smaller seminar class sizes and organized efforts to reach out to students worked.

The first measure asked students how much they agree/disagree with the statement, The course instructors were approachable. The students answered in the following manner:

Figure 8.1: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

*Measures were combined in the 2013 assessment.

These outcomes were measured through the question, The course instructors were concerned with my personal success.

Figure 8.2: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

*Measures were combined in the 2013 assessment.

Descriptive Stats 2013* 2014 Mean 2.88 4.10 Med. 4 4 Std. Dev.

1.48 0.91

Descriptive Stats 2013* 2014 Mean 2.88 3.81 Med. 4 4 Std. Dev.

1.48 0.96

Satisfaction with Course Instructors

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

I am unsure.

(3)

Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2013* (n=34)

2014 (n=117)

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neutral (3)

Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2013* (n=34)

2014 (n=117)

First-Year Seminar 2014 15

The third and final measure asked students to rate their agreement/disagreement with the statement, The course instructors were engaging in class. The major differences in the outcomes of this measure can be attributed to the introduction of more multi-media, class discussion, and guest speakers who complemented course content rather than simply describing services available upon OSUs campus.

Figure 8.3: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

This section of the assessment saw the greatest increase out of any. There were significant gains in all three areas of instructor satisfaction, indicating the importance of smaller seminar class sizes and the use of diverse teaching techniques. Moving forward, seminar instructors would be wise to keep the general format of the seminar and continue to use multimedia, guest speakers, small and large group discussion, and limited lecturing to deliver content in a variety of ways.

One way to continue to build relationships between the instructors and students and to allow even more in-class interaction would be to utilize small discussion groups more. In the comment sections of the assessment some students still felt that the 30 person classrooms were too large and that they did not get to discuss with their peers enough. Now that multiple ways of delivering content have been incorporated into the course, in the future instructors can cycle through those delivery methods in one class period and allow for more voices to be heard.

Descriptive Stats 2013 2014 Mean 2.95 3.65 Med. 3 4 Std. Dev.

1.12 1.17

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Netural (3)

Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5)

2013 (n=40)

2014 (n=117)

First-Year Seminar 2014 16

At the end of the assessment students were asked to rank their seminar experience overall.

Figure 9.1: Percentage of Students who Agree/Disagree

Remaining true to the pattern set in each of the above sections, students overall were much more likely to like the 2014 seminar than those who took the course in Fall 2013. While there is still room for improvement, this assessment suggests that the course is headed the right direction and only needs minor adjustments for the Fall of 2015.

In conclusion, this assessment has both directly measured student learning and indirectly measured students reflexive capacities and satisfaction with the course. While certain lessons need to be tweaked to be more accessible and engaging, the IA Seminar is overall meeting its short-term goals. In following years, these successes can be built upon to measure long-term goals and the relationship between the successful implementation of the seminar and students program completion rates.

For now, the IA Scholars Program should continue to build upon these successes and continue using the Seminar as the cornerstone of the first-year scholars experience. As this report demonstrates, students are increasingly walking away from this experience with a greater understanding of concepts in international affairs, feeling more connected to the program coordinators, and having practiced crucial self-reflection skills. The trend simply needs to be continued in 2015.

Descriptive Stats 2013 2014 Mean 3.05 3.45 Med. 3 4 Std. Dev.

1.07 1.00

Overall Course Rating and Conclusion

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

I hated this

course. (1)

I neither liked nor disliked this

course. (3)

I loved this

course. (5)

2013 (n=40)

2014 (n=117)