Learning Assessment and Rowan Core

Learning Assessment and Rowan Core Committee

LARC logo

The LARC Committee, which merges the previous Rowan Core and Learning Outcomes & Assessment committees, was created in Spring 2020. It is currently chaired by Ben Daniels.

Here are some quick links to LARC related content:

Complete Statement of Current Rowan Core Policy

Schedule for Rowan Core, WI, and LIT Course Offerings

Guidance for creating a Rowan Core, WI, or LIT course

Committee Charge

The Learning Assessment & Rowan Core (LARC) Committee has the following responsibilities:

Ongoing review of Rowan University’s assessment principles and practices.
Develop and approve changes to Rowan Core policy. (Significant changes require Senate approval.)
Review and approve new course assessment plans, including Rowan Core, WI, and LIT assessment. (This review must be completed as part of the curriculum proposal process before a course receives a Rowan Core, WI, or LIT course attribute.)
Review and approve proposed changes to course assessment plans. (This does not require a curriulum proposal. Simply contact the chair via email to begin the process.)
Communicate regularly with departments regarding Rowan Core policy, the status of Rowan Core courses, and assessment requirements.
Manage the Rowan Core program in coordination with the Director of Assessment (e.g., maintain a shared database, systematic review and analysis of assessment data).
Periodic review of existing course assessment plans to ensure that they remain relevant and follow best practices in assessment.
Revoke the Rowan Core, WI, or LIT attributes from a course if the department fails to perform and report on the approved student assessments.
Work with departments on program assessment, including the optional integration of program assessment with Rowan Core, WI, and LIT course assessment plans.
Review student appeals of transfer credit to fulfill Rowan Core, WI, or LIT requirements.
Revise existing Rowan Core learning outcomes (or add new ones) as needed.

About Rowan Core

Rowan Core is the general education model at Rowan University that began running in Fall 2018. Students complete course requirements in six Rowan Core literacies: Artistic, Communicative, Global, Humanistic, Quantitative and Scientific. Student learning is assessed based on a set of outcomes for each literacy.

Rowan Core Updates (and a Potted History)

New WI proposal questionnaire approved by the Senate.
Resolution on WI Transfer Credit policy approved by the Senate [Nov 19, 2021]
Start of Fall 2021 set as the date on which incoming transfer students will begin following the Rowan Core requirements [see the full Senate resolution]
Resolution establishing the review responsibilities of the Senate Curriculum and LARC Committees for Rowan Core, WI, and LIT courses [approved by the Senate Nov. 20, 2020]
Plan for the future of WI and LIT courses [approved by the Senate Nov. 20, 2020]
New LARC Committee replaces the existing Rowan Core and Learning Outcomes & Assessment Committees [Fall 2020]
New Rowan Core Transfer Credit Policy approved [April 24, 2020]
New online alternative to Public Speaking developed [April 24, 2020, link includes FAQ]
Full rewrite of the Rowan Core learning outcomes [Spring 2020, implementation completed in Fall 2021]
Amended Rowan Core policy approved [a full rewrite of Rowan Core policy, Spring 2019]
Initial Implementation of Rowan Core [Fall 2018, initially for first-year, native Rowan Students]
Quasi-curricular proposal creating the Rowan Core Committee and model approved [Fall 2015; note: this policy document is fully superseded by the Amended Rowan Core policy above]
(several years of contentious debates about the future of general education at Rowan)
Original Rowan Core Literacies and outcomes approved [Fall 2011; superseded by the new outcomes approved above]
Start of the initiative to reform general education at Rowan [Fall 2010]

A complete and current summary of Rowan Core policy is available here.

How to Create a Rowan Core, WI, or LIT Course

To create a new Rowan Core, WI, or LIT course - or to add one of these attributes to an existing course - begin by creating either a new course or change to existing course proposal. (See this Senate Curriculum Committee page for more information on how to do this.) A course assessment document must be completed and attached to the proposal under the "additional supporting documentation" section. This document should follow the official template, which ensures that all information required for LARC's review is included. This file should be submitted—as an editable Word Document, not a PDF. Here is a blank assessment template, which includes language and formats for the various types of courses for which one of these documents might be required. Any questions about the writing of these assessments should be emailed to the chair of the LARC committee, Ben Daniels. It is recommended that you submit a draft assessment document to the chair for preliminary review in order to ensure a smoother approval process.

Assessment Plan Recommendations

The assessment plan review process is meant to be collaborative, and the LARC Committee's goal is to help your department develop the best possible plan for effectively and meaningfully assessing your Rowan Core, WI, or LIT course. You are welcome to send ideas, drafts, questions, etc. to the LARC Committee chair, Ben Daniels, ahead of your official submission.

Departments are urged to consult our sample assessment plan, which includes explanatory comments and tips for designing your own plan. Also available is a list of Rowan Core Outcomes for each Literacy (rewritten in Spring 2020).

For those WI or LIT courses that also satisfy a Rowan Core literacy requirement, we urge departments to do what they can to reduce the assessment burden for instructors. Whenever possible, we recommend that they develop assignments that can do double-duty: being used for both Rowan Core and WI / LIT assessment. For instance, a WI and Global literacy course might create an essay assignment with some rubric dimensions linked to a Global outcome, and other rubric dimensions linked to one of the Communicative outcomes designated for WI use. Just by entering the scores for this one assignment, faculty would be completing both the Global literacy and WI assessments.

All approved assessments (Rowan Core, WI, and LIT) should be included together, for ease of use, in a single course assessment plan. Departments using the course for program assessment are encouraged to include this in the course plan as well.

Options for WI Assessment

Assessment for WI courses should involve a major, multi-stage writing project. Because every instructor teaching the course will do the same assessment, this requirement could potentially constrain how they teach the course. Here are two options for dealing with this issue.

Common Writing Project:
In some courses, it might make sense for every instructor to use the same writing project for assessment—either because there are not very many sections or because the course is fairly standardized in terms of content. For this option, departments would include the specific assignment in the course assessment plan, along with a rubric for the assignment that aligns with one of the WI-approved outcomes. An example of this approach is provided in the sample assessment plan (above).
Generic Project and Assessment Rubric:
In other courses, it may not be feasible to use the same writing project in every section of the course. Here, departments would instead provide a general description of the project (e.g., a term paper of a certain length, meeting certain general requirements). The project would then be assessed using a generic rubric based on one of the four WI-approved outcomes. Here are these four generic rubrics.

Generic WI Rubric #1: Context, Audience and Purpose: Students can communicate in ways that are sensitive to context, audience and purpose.

	Proficient	Intermediate	Basic	Developmental
Audience	The writer’s choices reveal a comprehensive understanding of their audience’s knowledge, preferences, assumptions and dispositions.	The writer’s choices reveal an incomplete understanding of their audience’s knowledge, preferences, assumptions and dispositions.	The writer’s choices reveal a flawed understanding of their audience’s knowledge, preferences, assumptions and dispositions.	It is not clear the writer made choices with respect to their audience.
Purpose	The purpose of the text is clear and thoroughly executed throughout the text.	The purpose of the text is clear but inconsistently executed in the text.	The purpose of the text is indistinct.	There is no discernable purpose of the text.
Context	The text works well within the broader context of the discipline or genre.	There is some contextual dissonance between the text and the discipline or genre.	The text does not work within the broader context of the discipline or genre.	There is no discernable context in which the text would work.

Generic WI Rubric #2: Conventions: Students can navigate the conventions of various communities, genres, media and modes.

	Proficient	Intermediate	Basic	Developmental
Appropriate Conventions	The writer follows conventions that are appropriate for the community, genre, media and mode.	The writer inconsistently follows conventions that are appropriate for the community, genre, media and mode	The writer follows conventions that are inappropriate for the community, genre, media and mode.	The writer follows conventions very inconsistently with no discernable rationale.
Effective Use of Conventions	The writer’s use of conventions (possibly including artful departure from those conventions) contributes to the text’s effectiveness.	The writer’s inconsistent or weak use of conventions fails to contribute to the text's effectiveness.	The writer’s use of conventions subverts the text’s effectiveness.	The writer uses conventions very inconsistently with no discernable rationale.

Generic WI Rubric #3: Analysis and Critique: Students can employ analytical and critical skills in their own communications and in their evaluation of others’ communications.

	Proficient	Intermediate	Basic	Developmental
Analysis	The writer’s analysis successfully clarifies something that is otherwise challenging to comprehend.	The writer’s analysis somewhat clarifies something that is otherwise challenging to comprehend.	The writer attempts to clarify something that is otherwise challenging to comprehend.	There is no evidence that the writer is attempting to clarify something that is challenging to comprehend.
Critique	The writer’s critique is insightful and well argued.	There are aspects of the writer’s critique that are insightful and well argued	The writer’s critique is simplistic or insufficiently argued.	There is no evidence of a critique.

Generic WI Rubric #4: Sources: Students can select credible, authoritative sources and integrate relevant information into their communications.

	Proficient	Intermediate	Basic	Developmental
Credible and Authoritative	All sources the writer cites are credible and from authorities on the subject.	Most sources the writer cites are credible and from authorities on the subject.	Few sources the writer cites are credible and from authorities on the subject.	The author does not cite credible sources from authorities on the subject.
Integration	All sources are well-integrated and support the purpose of the writer’s text.	Most sources are well-integrated and support the purpose of the writer’s text.	Sources are not well-integrated or they fail to adequately support the purpose of the writer’s text.	There is no evidence the writer attempted to integrate sources or use them to support the purpose of the text.

Committee Members - Academic Year 23/24

Ben Daniels	Chair
Joel Rudin	Faculty, College of Business
Grace Fillenwarth	Faculty, College of Communication & Creative Arts
Amy Accardo	Faculty, College of Education
Kevin Dahm	Faculty, College of Engineering
Ed Kazarian	Faculty, College of Humanities & Social Sciences
Tony Hostetter	Faculty, College of Performing Arts
Matt Travis	Faculty, College of Science & Mathematics
	Faculty, School of Earth & Environment
Jenny Longo	Faculty, School of Nursing & Health Professions
Rui Shi	Additional Faculty Member
Angela Ruckdeschel	Additional Faculty Member
Jeremy Glazer	Additional Faculty Member
Samantha Kennedy	Librarian
Cherly Turley	AFT Representative
Christine Larsen-Britt	Professional Staff Advisor
Patrick Massaro	Professional Staff Advisor
Jeff Bonfield	Director of Assessment (non-voting member)
Christine Mazza	Registrar's Office (non-voting member)

End of Year Reports

Report for:

Reports of the previous Rowan Core Committee (superseded by the LARC Committee):

Reports of the previous Learning Outcomes & Assessment Committee (superseded by the LARC Committee):

Learning Assessment and Rowan Core

Learning Assessment and Rowan Core