| Overall Rating | Platinum |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 87.91 |
| Liaison | Pierre Lemay |
| Submission Date | Dec. 19, 2022 |
Université Laval
AC-6: Sustainability Literacy Assessment
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
4.00 / 4.00 |
Pierre
Lemay Development Advisor Office of the Vice Rector, External and International Affairs and Health |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Does the institution conduct an assessment of the sustainability literacy of its students?:
Yes
Which of the following best describes the literacy assessment? The assessment is administered to::
The entire (or predominate) student body, directly or by representative sample
Which of the following best describes the structure of the assessment? The assessment is administered as a::
Pre- and post-assessment to the same cohort or to representative samples in both a pre- and post-test
A copy of the questions included in the sustainability literacy assessment(s):
---
A list or sample of the questions included in the sustainability literacy assessment or the website URL where the assessment tool may be found:
https://www.ulaval.ca/sites/default/files/DD/PDF/Evaluation-connaissances-DD-A2022.pdf
A brief description of how the literacy assessment was developed and/or when it was adopted:
The questions for the sustainable development literacy assessment were written by the sustainable development team in collaboration with the Observatoire québécois de l'adaptation aux changements climatiques (OQACC). They were designed with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reference framework. The purpose of the assessment is to evaluate the knowledge acquired by a person during his or her time at Université Laval. It will be repeated every year. The involvement of the OQACC, specialized in knowledge assessment, will allow the University to improve the questions in order to obtain accurate and robust data.
The design sequence spanning October 2021 to April 2022 is as follows:
- 4 members of the Sustainability Team wrote two questions per SDG, for a total of 34 questions.
- Accompanied by the OQACC, the team reviews the questions and selects the two best questions per SDG.
- Following the various comments, the vocabulary of the questions was reworked.
- A first test phase is carried out with a targeted sample to determine the discrimination of the questions, i.e., whether they allow for a good separation between someone who has the knowledge and someone who does not. The results are analyzed by the OQACC.
- Following the OQACC's comments and analysis, the questions were reworked by the project team.
The design sequence spanning October 2021 to April 2022 is as follows:
- 4 members of the Sustainability Team wrote two questions per SDG, for a total of 34 questions.
- Accompanied by the OQACC, the team reviews the questions and selects the two best questions per SDG.
- Following the various comments, the vocabulary of the questions was reworked.
- A first test phase is carried out with a targeted sample to determine the discrimination of the questions, i.e., whether they allow for a good separation between someone who has the knowledge and someone who does not. The results are analyzed by the OQACC.
- Following the OQACC's comments and analysis, the questions were reworked by the project team.
A brief description of how a representative sample was reached (if applicable) and how the assessment(s) were administered :
The assesment was distributed to the university community in all grades from September 21, 2022 to October 05, 2022. Several email communications were conducted to invite students to complete the survey. Two $500 scholarships were drawn from the respondents.
In order to assess changes over time, the assesment will be repeated each fall. The next evaluation will take place in the fall of 2023.
In order to assess changes over time, the assesment will be repeated each fall. The next evaluation will take place in the fall of 2023.
A brief summary of results from the literacy assessment(s):
The data collected (2539 answers) allows us to establish a baseline for comparison in future editions.
- Undergraduate students had an average score of 24.7/34.
- Graduate students (Master) had an average score of 25.8/34.
- Graduate students (PhD) had an average score of 25.7/34.
Students in all grades had the following results
a) 0-30 completed credits: average of 24.5/34
b) 31 to 60 completed credits: average of 25.4/34
c) 61 to 90 completed credits: average of 24.8/34
d) 91 to 120 completed credits: average of 25.8/34
e) 121 credits or more completed: average of 26.1/34
Analyses of variance (multiple comparisons tests) show that the level of knowledge towards sustainable development is statistically higher (p < 0.05) for graduate (A = 25.8) and postgraduate (A = 25.7) students than for undergraduate students (A = 24.7).
The analyses show that, in general, students with 30 or fewer credits perform worse on the test (A = 24.5) than those with 31 to 60 credits (A = 25.4; d = 0.15), 91 to 120 credits (A = 25.8; d = 0.24), and 121 or more credits (A = 26.1; d = 0.28). The same is true for students with 61-90 credits (A = 24.8) compared to those with 121 or more credits (A = 26.1; d = 0.17).
- Undergraduate students had an average score of 24.7/34.
- Graduate students (Master) had an average score of 25.8/34.
- Graduate students (PhD) had an average score of 25.7/34.
Students in all grades had the following results
a) 0-30 completed credits: average of 24.5/34
b) 31 to 60 completed credits: average of 25.4/34
c) 61 to 90 completed credits: average of 24.8/34
d) 91 to 120 completed credits: average of 25.8/34
e) 121 credits or more completed: average of 26.1/34
Analyses of variance (multiple comparisons tests) show that the level of knowledge towards sustainable development is statistically higher (p < 0.05) for graduate (A = 25.8) and postgraduate (A = 25.7) students than for undergraduate students (A = 24.7).
The analyses show that, in general, students with 30 or fewer credits perform worse on the test (A = 24.5) than those with 31 to 60 credits (A = 25.4; d = 0.15), 91 to 120 credits (A = 25.8; d = 0.24), and 121 or more credits (A = 26.1; d = 0.28). The same is true for students with 61-90 credits (A = 24.8) compared to those with 121 or more credits (A = 26.1; d = 0.17).
Optional Fields
---
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
---
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.