We have developed criteria based on the requirements
from the PRS and suggestions from the IPRO office that measures IPRO
deliverables. We choose four different IPRO projects from Fall 2003
and evaluated their deliverables to test the criteria. One project that
did excellent on IPRO day and on the learning objective assessment,
two projects did average, and one project scored poorly. The grading
scale was from 1 to 3, 1 being they did not meet the criteria, 2 being
they met criteria, but there is room for improvement, and 3 being criteria
was met. 20% of the total score was based on spelling, organization
and grammar. 80% of the total score was based on the content. Each of
our four team members evaluated the criteria and we later compared our
results. We calculated the average score and standard deviation. If
the standard deviation was great for any of the criteria, it was reconsidered
for revision.
Our subteam decided earlier to interview faculty
members who are currently teaching, or have taught previously IPRO projects.
We wanted to get the feedback and viewpoints of faculty as well as how
they define an ideal IPRO. Based on that plan, we have contacted faculty
for scheduling interviews with them. We have to admit that getting an
appointment from faculty or getting email responses from them may be
a tiresome experience at times. Anyway, two of our members are currently
conducting interviews. The process is still going on. We plan to transcribe
the information we get from faculty and then we want to come up with
a definition of "ideal IPRO" as the faculty members see it.
The four members of our subteam presented to the IPRO office proposals
for IPROs submitted for the Fall 2004 semester by faculty. We researched
background information about the project. If it was a continuing project,
we considered how they did in the past on IPRO day and on the learning
objective assessments. Based on criteria developed by the faculty,
our subteam, three faculty members, and three members of the IPRO
office voted on which projects should be listed for next semester's.
The faculty members consisted of Professors Schug, Huyck, and Ferguson.
The members of the IPRO office consisted of Mr. Jacobious, Vice Provost
Roberson, and Jay Fisher. After determing which projects were ranked
the highest, they were posted for the Fall 2004 semster.
