★ Honors Hub — Derivation-Based Assessment System

Richard J. Daley College · Honors Program · Built on the RJDC Assessment Committee Architecture

CSLO → Identity → Rubric → Scoring → Reporting Zero-Cost · Zero-Vendor Self-Documenting Architecture

Role: Nothing is invented. Everything is derived.

Faculty View — Your Honors Course

📚 How This Works

You fill out one survey when your course enters the honors rotation. From your responses, the system derives your course's consultant identity, generates rubric criteria, and suggests cross-disciplinary pairings. You never score PSLO 3. You never touch institutional forms. Your survey responses flow through the derivation chain and generate everything else automatically.

Your CSLO→ HIA Theme→ Consultant Identity→ Rubric Criteria→ Scoring→ Reporting

✍ Game Plan Survey (Survey 1)

CoursePSLO 3

Your honors course name, number, and section

Selected CSLO→ Derives IdentityHLC 3.A

Which course-level student learning outcome connects to the HIA theme? Copy verbatim from your syllabus.

✎ Derivation note: This CSLO becomes the seed for your consultant identity. The identity carries its own evaluation criteria — assessment and identity collapse into one structure.

HIA Theme ConnectionPTK→ Derives Identity

Which theme from "What's Next? Imagining the Future" does your CSLO connect to?

How Your Course Addresses the Common Honors CSLOPSLO 3HLC 3.D

The proposed Common Honors CSLO: "Apply disciplinary reasoning to analyze a shared complex problem, demonstrating (1) fidelity to the field's methods and questions, (2) appropriate integration of discipline-specific evidence, (3) recognition of what the disciplinary lens cannot address, and (4) substantive engagement with perspectives from other fields."

✎ Derivation note: Components 1 & 2 (Fidelity, Discipline Integration) are course-level — your survey strengthens these. Components 3 & 4 (Discipline Limits, Other Fields to Engage) emerge from cross-disciplinary pairing. You improve 1 & 2; the system surfaces 3 & 4.

Honors Project Description→ Derives Rubric

What will students produce as their honors project? This artifact becomes the three-stage submission.

BenchmarkHLC 3.D

Performance goal for your students on this project

Existing Assessment Instrument

Are you using an existing rubric, exam, or prompt? Upload or describe.

Syllabus UploadHLC 3.B→ CSLO Verification

Upload your current honors syllabus. The Director uses it to verify your CSLO selection and compare with non-honors sections. Organized in Drive by semester.

📄

Click to upload syllabus (.docx or .pdf)

Stored in: Drive > Honors_Syllabi_Fall2026 > [Course]

🎯 Your Consultant Identity — Derived from Your CSLO

Logical Analyst

PHIL 105-HND · Prof. J. Basso · Fall 2026

"What follows from these premises, and what does not? Where does the argument break, and what would repair it?"

C1: Fidelity

C2: Integration

C3: Limits

C4: Other Fields

Evidence signature: Logical validity, premise-conclusion structure, counterexample testing
Blind spot: Cannot capture lived experience, emotional weight, or cultural context of reasoning
Derived from CSLO: "Construct and evaluate arguments using the principles of deductive and inductive reasoning."

Paired with: Community Psychologist (PSYCH 201 — Prof. Kosipa) · Argument ↔ Context
Pairing rationale: Logic provides structure; psychology provides human context. Strong tension architecture: what logic sees, psychology questions, and vice versa.

📋 Section Roster Upload — GPA Verification

Upload your Brightspace section roster CSV on the first day of class. The system cross-references against the Director's eligibility list and flags any students who don't meet the 3.0 GPA requirement or haven't completed the program application.

📄

Drop Brightspace CSV here or click to browse

Brightspace → Grades → Export → CSV. Columns needed: Student Name, Student ID, Email

Student	ID	GPA	Application	Status
Maria Gonzalez	MG-2026	3.45	✓ Complete	Program Student
James Chen	JC-2025	3.72	✓ Complete	Program Student
Kevin Okafor	KO-2026	2.85	✗ Not Applied	⚠ FLAGGED
Sofia Rivera	SR-2026	3.21	✓ Complete	Program Student
David Park	DP-2026	3.15	✗ Not Applied	Schedule Enrollee

📈 Your Section — Aggregate Component Scores (from Director)

3.2

C1: Fidelity

2.8

C2: Integration

2.4

C3: Limits

2.6

C4: Other Fields

Section patterns only — no individual student scores. Components 1 & 2 are course-level (you improve these). Components 3 & 4 are program-level (emerge from pairing).

💬 Cross-Disciplinary Feedback — Your Paired Course's Students

Students from your paired course have submitted their Stage 1 artifacts. Read each through your discipline's lens and provide formative feedback. This is the minimum floor — you're asking: "What does my field see that theirs cannot?"

Maria Gonzalez — Community PsychologistFeedback Due

PSYCH 201-HND · Analyzing Chicago Health Equity Challenge through community psychology lens

"In examining the South Side's response to chronic health disparities, community psychology reveals three intersecting dynamics: collective efficacy theory suggests that neighborhood social cohesion directly predicts health-seeking behavior..."

Your task as Logical Analyst: Read this through the lens of logical structure. Where are the premises? Where are the conclusions? What follows, what doesn't? What assumptions go unexamined?

Your Feedback (through your discipline's lens)

James Chen — Community PsychologistFeedback Submitted

Submitted Oct 18, 2026 · Student has received feedback and is writing Stage 3 reflection

🚀 Cross-Disciplinary Engagement — Beyond the Minimum Floor

The cross-disciplinary feedback above is the minimum floor. You can go further. Each step on this ladder is optional — choose what fits your interest and capacity. The Director tracks engagement levels across the program.

Level 1: Cross-Disciplinary Formative Feedback

Read a student's Stage 1 from your paired course and provide written feedback through your discipline's lens. (Required — the minimum floor)

Level 2: Co-Teach a Session

Co-teach a session with your paired faculty member — each presenting the shared problem through your own discipline. Students see two lenses live.

Level 3: Seminar / Panel

Organize a Zoom or in-person panel with 2–4 honors faculty, each analyzing the same problem from their discipline. Open to all honors students.

Level 4: Conference Presentation

Present your cross-disciplinary work at NCHC, HCIR Student Symposium, or CCC District showcase. Co-present with your paired faculty or with students.

Level 5: Community Partnership (PTK)

Connect your cross-disciplinary work to a community organization through PTK's Honors in Action. Your analysis becomes action — the disciplines serve the community together.

Your current level: Level 1 (Feedback provided for 2 of 2 paired students). To explore Level 2+, contact the Director.

📈 Adjustment Survey (Survey 2) — Available Next Rotation

This survey opens the next time your course rotates back into the honors schedule. The Director provides your section's aggregate scores on Components 1 & 2 — then you review what worked, what didn't, and plan your intervention.

Status: Not Yet Available — opens when PHIL 105-HND returns to honors rotation

Director-Provided Scores (Components 1 & 2)PSLO 3HLC 3.D

These are your section's aggregate scores — how well your students demonstrated disciplinary fidelity and evidence integration. The Director provides these before you fill out this survey.

—

C1: Fidelity (your section)

—

C2: Integration (your section)

What Worked?→ Form 2 Outcomes

Based on the scores above, what aspects of your course successfully built disciplinary thinking?

What Didn't Work?→ Form 3A Improvement

Where were students weakest? What does the data suggest needs to change?

Planned Intervention→ Form 3A ActionsHLC 3.E

What specific change will you make next time? Be precise: what, when, how.

How this maps: Your responses auto-populate Form 2 (Outcomes Report) and Form 3A (Improvement Plan). The Director never asks you to fill out those forms — they generate from what you write here.

🔄 Reflection Survey (Survey 3) — Available After Intervention

This survey opens the rotation after your Adjustment survey — after you've implemented your planned intervention and the Director has new scores to compare. This is closing the loop.

Status: Not Yet Available — opens after Adjustment survey + new scoring cycle

Did Your Intervention Work?→ Form 3B EffectivenessHLC 3.E

Compare your new C1 & C2 scores against the prior cycle. What changed?

What Changed in Student Work?→ Form 3B Analysis

Beyond scores — what did you see differently in the artifacts?

What's Next?→ Form 3B Next Steps + feeds next Form 1

Continue, modify, or new approach? This closes the loop — and the next Game Plan survey starts the cycle again.

How this maps: Your responses auto-populate Form 3B (Closing the Loop). The Director compares your prior intervention plan against your new results — and the cycle begins again with the next Game Plan. Three surveys. Three rotations. Not three surveys at once.

📅 Important Dates — Program Calendar

Welcome to the Honors Hub

🌱

First Semester in Honors

Start with your own perspective. No consultant identity yet — your lived experience is the baseline.

🔁

Returning Honors Student

Pick up where you left off. Your prior identities, scores, and feedback are all here.

🎯 Your Consultant Identity This Semester

Community Psychologist

PSYCH 201-HND · Fall 2026

"What psychological forces shape this community's response?"

What this means for your project: You're analyzing the Chicago Health Equity Challenge through the lens of community psychology. Think about behavioral patterns, community needs, social context, and how people respond to systemic pressures. Your evidence comes from psychological research — surveys, case studies, behavioral data.

Your paired discipline: Logical Analyst (PHIL 105-HND)
After you submit your project, a philosophy faculty member will read it and give you feedback through their lens — asking "What follows logically from your claims? Where might your reasoning break?" Then you'll write a reflection responding to that feedback. That reflection is where the real learning happens.

Thinking like your field

Using your field's evidence

Knowing where your field stops

Engaging other fields

📝 Your Project — Three Stages

Your project has three stages. You submit Stage 1, receive feedback from another discipline, then write a reflection in Stage 3. The Director scores all four components after Stage 3.

Stage 1: Your Original Submission Submitted

Your prompt: Analyze the Chicago Health Equity Challenge through the lens of community psychology. What psychological forces shape how this community responds to health disparities? What evidence from your field supports your analysis?

Your Submission

Submitted October 12, 2026

Your Semester Progress — Honors Completion Points

18 / 30 pts

✓ 10 pts
Stage 1 Submitted

✓ 5 pts
Peer Response 1

○ 5 pts
Peer Response 2

○ 10 pts
Stage 3 Reflection

These are Honors Program completion points — needed for your Honors Certificate (Bylaws §9, 18 credit hours). They are separate from your course grade. Your instructor grades your coursework. The Hub tracks your interdisciplinary growth.

💬 Peer Discussion — Posts from All Honors Courses 1 of 2 responses completed

You can see posts from students in all honors courses — not just your own. Respond to two peers: one from a different discipline (cross-discipline), and one from a related or prior discipline (same-family). 200–300 words each.

David Park — Logical Analyst (PHIL 105-HND) Cross-Discipline

The Chicago Health Equity Challenge, viewed through formal logic, reveals a cascade of unsound inferences in current policy. The city's health equity plan assumes that increasing clinic density reduces outcome disparities — but this commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If adequate access produces equitable outcomes, and we provide access, it does not follow that outcomes become equitable. The missing premise: access is necessary but not sufficient. Confounding variables — transportation barriers, linguistic isolation, historical mistrust — each break the inferential chain independently...

Posted Oct 8, 2026 ✓ You responded

Your Response (Cross-Discipline) — 5 pts earned

Your logical decomposition of the access-to-outcomes inference is sharp, but from a community psychology perspective, I'd push back on framing trust as a "confounding variable." Trust isn't noise in the signal — it IS the signal. Collective efficacy research shows that community trust mediates every step of the causal chain you're mapping. What logic sees as a missing premise, psychology sees as the primary mechanism...

Aaliyah Thompson — Social Systems Analyst (SOC 201-HND) Cross-Discipline

Stratification theory reveals what individual-level health interventions systematically miss: the Chicago Health Equity Challenge is not primarily a health problem — it's a structural inequality problem that manifests in health outcomes. When we map ZIP code to life expectancy, the gradient isn't random. It traces redlining boundaries from the 1930s. The social structure reproduces health disparities through three mechanisms: residential segregation concentrating poverty, institutional disinvestment removing resources, and cumulative disadvantage compounding across generations...

Posted Oct 9, 2026

✎ Respond to this post (Cross-Discipline) — or respond to another cross-discipline post below

Rosa Mendez — Narrative Analyst (LIT 128-HND) Cross-Discipline

The dominant narrative of health equity in Chicago is told from the perspective of institutions — hospital systems reporting metrics, public health agencies publishing dashboards, policy documents citing statistics. But narrative analysis asks: whose story is absent? The Chicago Health Equity Challenge, read as a text, has a conspicuous silence where patient testimony should be. The people most affected by health disparities are positioned as objects of analysis rather than narrating subjects...

Posted Oct 7, 2026

James Chen — Community Psychologist (PSYCH 201-HND) Same-Family

Community psychology's emphasis on ecological models reveals multiple intervention points in the Chicago Health Equity Challenge. Bronfenbrenner's framework suggests that health disparities operate simultaneously at the microsystem (family health behaviors), mesosystem (clinic-community relationships), exosystem (insurance policy structures), and macrosystem (cultural beliefs about healthcare). Most interventions target only one level — typically the microsystem, through individual behavior change campaigns. This is why they fail...

Posted Oct 6, 2026

✎ This is your remaining required response (Same-Family) — 5 pts

Why you can see posts from other courses: The Hub connects all honors sections. In Brightspace, you'd only see your classmates. Here, you see how other disciplines analyze the same problem — which is the whole point. Your cross-discipline response is where you practice seeing what your field cannot.

Stage 2: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Feedback Feedback Received

Feedback from Prof. Basso (Logical Analyst — PHIL 105-HND)

Your analysis of collective efficacy is compelling, but I want to push on the logical structure of your central claim. You argue that trust deficits cause the utilization gap — but you've presented this as a direct causal relationship when the evidence you cite (correlation between social cohesion and health-seeking) supports association, not causation. A logician would ask: what alternative explanations have you ruled out? Could the utilization gap and trust deficit both be effects of a third variable (e.g., economic precarity) rather than causally linked?

Also consider: your claim about "rational protective skepticism" is powerful, but it carries an implicit premise — that communities are correct to distrust. From my discipline's perspective, this is a normative claim embedded in an empirical argument. Can you separate them? What would your analysis look like if the skepticism were irrational but still predictive?

This feedback is formative — it doesn't affect your grade. It's designed to help you see what your discipline's lens cannot.

Stage 3: Your Reflection In Progress

Reflection prompt: Now that you've received feedback from a different discipline, expand your analysis. Where does your original lens have limits? What can the other discipline see that yours cannot? How does this change your understanding of the problem?

Your Reflection

📈 Your Scores & Feedback Pending — Submit Stage 3 first

Your scores will appear here after the Director reviews your completed three-stage artifact. You'll see your score on each of the four components plus written feedback.

—

Thinking like your field

—

Using your field's evidence

—

Knowing where your field stops

—

Engaging other fields

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Does this affect my grade?
No. Your PSLO 3 scores are separate from your course grade. They track your growth across the Honors Program — not your performance in any single class.

Do I have to change how I study?
No. The project builds on what you're already doing in your honors course. You write through your discipline's lens — which is what the course already teaches you to do.

What if I take a semester off?
You pick up where you left off. Your prior work, scores, and feedback are all saved in the Hub. When you come back, the system shows you your "Journey So Far" and places you in the next semester of the arc.

What's a consultant identity?
You already think like something — a psychologist, a writer, an analyst. We're naming it. Your consultant identity is derived from what your course teaches you to do. It's not a role you perform; it's a lens you already use.

How does this connect to PTK?
If you're a Phi Theta Kappa member, your project work in the Hub counts as Honors in Action portfolio evidence. One artifact, multiple purposes.

Who scores my work?
The Honors Director. Not your instructor. Your instructor provides cross-disciplinary feedback (Stage 2), but the scoring on all four components is done by the Director using a rubric that was derived from your course's learning outcomes.

🔒 Your work lives here permanently. Everything you submit — Stage 1, Stage 2 feedback, Stage 3 reflections, peer responses, scores, Director feedback — is stored in the Honors Hub, not in your Brightspace course shell. When a course ends, your work stays. When you return next semester, it's all here. If you take a semester off, your Journey So Far is waiting when you come back. The Hub is your permanent record.

📅 Important Dates — Your Semester

Fall 2026 — Consultant Identity Roster (Derived from Game Plan Surveys)

🔗 Cross-Disciplinary Pairings — Fall 2026

Course Schedule — Honors Sections per Semester

Input 1: Which honors courses are running, who's teaching them, and section numbers. This determines which identities are in play and which pairings are possible. Update each semester before Game Plan surveys deploy.

Semester

Course	Section	Faculty	Game Plan	Identity	Paired With	Status
PHIL 105-HND	A	J. Basso	✓	Logical Analyst	PSYCH 201	Published
PSYCH 201-HND	A	S. Kosipa	✓	Community Psychologist	PHIL 105	Derived
PHIL 107-HND	A	J. Basso	✓	Ethicist	LIT 128	Published
LIT 128-HND	A	M. Harbison	✗	Pending	—	Awaiting GP
SPEECH 101-HND	A	J. Basso	✗	Pending	—	Awaiting GP
SOC 201-HND	A	P. Walsh	⏳	Deriving...	—	Submitted

Pipeline: Schedule confirmed → Faculty receive PTK Guide → Faculty submit syllabi → Game Plan Survey deployed → Responses generate IdentityMap → IdentityMap + Schedule generate PairingMap → Validated identities populate student-facing Hub.

New Course Onboarding Example: When ECON 201-HND enters rotation → Department catalogs HND section (G2R recommended) → Samuel Kosipa submits syllabus → Game Plan survey deploys → Kosipa selects CSLO + HIA theme → Director generates Claude prompt → Claude derives Economist identity → Director enters and validates → Identity enters library + pairing pool → System absorbs new course without architectural modification. The framework extends itself.

HIA Themes — PTK Honors Study Topic Management

Input 2: Eight themes per two-year cycle from the PTK Program Guide. Director updates when the study topic rotates (every 2 years). Faculty select which theme(s) connect to their course in the Game Plan survey. Themes cannot be finalized until Fall syllabi are collected.

Current Study Topic (2026–2027)

"What's Next? Imagining the Future"

Source: PTK Honors Program Guide 2026–2027
Cycle: 2 years (next rotation: 2028–2029)

Eight Themes — Faculty Alignment Status

Note: Consultant identities cannot be finalized until Fall 2026 syllabi are collected and instructors select their own theme alignments via the Game Plan survey. The themes listed here populate the Game Plan dropdown. Faculty choose — the system derives.

Game Plan Survey Queue — Review & Identity Derivation

Faculty submit Game Plans. You derive the consultant identity by generating a structured prompt for Claude, reviewing the result, and entering it back here. Over time, the identity library grows from your confirmed derivations — the system gets smarter because you teach it.

Faculty submits Game Plan→ Director generates Claude prompt→ Claude derives identity→ Director enters & validates→ Identity published + library grows

🤖 Identity Derivation Tool — Generate Claude Prompt

Select a submitted Game Plan below. The system assembles the CSLO, theme, course context, and derivation template into a structured prompt you copy into Claude. Claude's pattern matching is superior to any keyword library — and every confirmed derivation teaches the system.

Select Game Plan to Derive

✎ Enter Claude's Derivation Result

Identity Name

Core Question

Evidence Signature

Blind Spot

Rubric C1: Fidelity

Rubric C2: Discipline Integration

Rubric C3: Discipline Limits

Rubric C4: Other Fields to Engage

When you save, this identity enters the library. Next time a CSLO matches these patterns, the system suggests it automatically. You are teaching the system.

PSYCH 201-HND — Prof. KosipaIdentity Derived — Awaiting Validation

Submitted: Aug 25, 2026 · Theme: The Future of Society, Culture, and the Arts

Faculty-Reported CSLO

"Apply psychological principles to analyze human behavior in social contexts."

Derived Identity

Community Psychologist — "What psychological forces shape this community's response?"

Evidence Signature (Derived)

Behavioral data, survey instruments, case studies, community needs assessments

Blind Spot (Derived)

Cannot access economic structures, legal frameworks, or biological mechanisms

Suggested pairing: Logical Analyst (PHIL 105-HND) · Tension: Argument ↔ Context

Form 1 auto-population check: CSLO ✓ · Instrument ✓ · Benchmark ✓ · PTK alignment ✓ · Timeline ✓ — all Form 1 fields populated from this survey

SOC 201-HND — Prof. WalshSubmitted — Needs Derivation

Submitted: Aug 28, 2026 · Theme: The Future of Society, Culture, and the Arts

CSLO: "Apply sociological perspectives to analyze social institutions and inequalities."

✎ Use the Identity Derivation Tool above — select this Game Plan, generate prompt, paste into Claude, enter result.

PHIL 105-HND — Prof. BassoPublished

Validated: Aug 22, 2026 · Identity: Logical Analyst · Paired with: Community Psychologist

PHIL 107-HND — Prof. BassoPublished

Validated: Aug 22, 2026 · Identity: Ethicist · Paired with: Narrative Analyst

⚠ Outstanding: 2 sections have not submitted Game Plans

LIT 128-HND (M. Harbison) — no submission · SPEECH 101-HND (J. Basso) — no submission

Scoring Pipeline — Three-Stage Artifacts

Each artifact passes through three stages. The derived rubric pre-populates scoring criteria from the identity. You score all four components + narrative feedback.

📝 Scoring Interface — VALUE Rubric with Derived Criteria

Scoring: Maria Gonzalez · PSYCH 201-HND · Community Psychologist · Stage 3 (Reflection complete)
Paired with: Logical Analyst (PHIL 105-HND) · Feedback by: Prof. J. Basso

📚 Base Layer: AAC&U Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric

The five VALUE dimensions provide the static foundation. The derivation engine populates course-specific criteria within each dimension from Game Plan survey data. Same dimensions, different evidence signatures per identity.

C1: Fidelity VALUE: Connections to Discipline Course-Level

Base criterion: Does the student think from within the disciplinary framework, using its questions and evidence types?

→ Derived for Community Psychologist: Does the student frame the analysis through psychological forces — behavioral patterns, community needs assessments, social context? Does the student cite psychological research (surveys, case studies, behavioral data)?

Maps to: Game Plan → CSLO ("Apply psychological principles...") → Form 1 (instrument description) → Form 2 (course-level outcomes, C1 aggregate)

C2: Discipline Integration VALUE: Discipline + Transfer Course-Level

Base criterion: Does the student deploy discipline-appropriate evidence to support their analysis?

→ Derived for Community Psychologist: Does the student cite behavioral data, survey instruments, case studies, or community needs assessments? Are sources from psychological literature (APA journals, community health databases, validated instruments)?

Maps to: Game Plan → evidence signature → Form 1 (assessment method) → Form 2 (course-level outcomes, C2 aggregate)

C3: Discipline Limits VALUE: Reflection & Self-Assessment Program-Level

Base criterion: Can the student name what their disciplinary lens cannot see? (Emerges from Stage 2 cross-disciplinary feedback)

→ Derived for Community Psychologist: Does the student recognize that psychology cannot access economic structures, legal frameworks, or biological mechanisms? Does the Stage 3 reflection show awareness that the Logical Analyst's feedback revealed assumptions the psychological lens couldn't test?

Maps to: Identity blind spot definition → Stage 2 feedback → Form 2 (program-level outcomes, C3 aggregate) → PSLO 3 longitudinal tracking

C4: Other Fields to Engage VALUE: Experience + Communication Program-Level

Base criterion: Does the student engage substantively with perspectives from other fields? (Emerges from pairing + Stage 3 reflection)

→ Derived for pairing Community Psychologist ↔ Logical Analyst: Does the student engage with logical reasoning (validity, premise-conclusion structure, counterexample testing) as a genuine complement to psychological analysis? Does the reflection show the insight requires both lenses — not just acknowledging the other field but integrating it?

Maps to: PairingMap tension type → Stage 3 reflection quality → Form 2 (program-level outcomes, C4 aggregate) → PSLO 3 longitudinal tracking

Director Narrative Feedback

Published to student view + aggregated (anonymized) to faculty view for Survey 2

Assessment Guidelines — Discussion Board Protocol & Participation

Input 5 from system specification. Director configures these parameters. They flow to the student submission interface and the scoring rubric.

📝 Discussion Board Posting Parameters

Initial Post — Stage 1

Student writes through consultant identity lens

Reflection — Stage 3

Student responds to cross-disciplinary feedback

Peer Responses per Semester

Per IRB protocol: 1 cross-discipline, 1 within/prior role

Capstone Reflection (S4)

Per IRB protocol §6.3

📈 Prompt Escalation Across Four Semesters

Discussion prompts escalate through the four-semester arc (per IRB protocol §6.2):

S1: IDENTIFY

Prompt: "From your own perspective, what do you see when you look at the Chicago Health Equity Challenge? What patterns, questions, or concerns emerge from your experience?"

No consultant identity. Student's lived experience is the baseline. Simplified scoring on analytical clarity and evidence use.

S2: FOCUS

Prompt: "As a [Consultant Identity], analyze the Chicago Health Equity Challenge. What does your discipline see? What evidence from your field supports your analysis? What questions does your field ask that others might not?"

First identity unlocked. Cross-disciplinary feedback begins. All four components scorable.

S3: ANALYZE

Prompt: "You now carry two disciplinary lenses: [Identity 1] and [Identity 2]. How do these lenses complement each other? Where do they conflict? What can you see with both that you couldn't see with one?"

Two identities accumulated. Deeper integration expected. C3 and C4 scores should rise.

S4: SOLVE + Capstone

Prompt: "With three disciplinary lenses and your own perspective, propose a response to the Chicago Health Equity Challenge that could not have emerged from any single field alone. What did you learn to see across four semesters that you couldn't see at the start?"

Triple Venn → capstone synthesis. The reflection IS the capstone. All four components fully scorable. 500-750 word synthesis essay.

💰 Student Participation Points

These are Honors Program participation points — separate from course grades. They track engagement, not performance.

Activity	Points	Timing
Stage 1: Original Submission	10	By Week 8
Peer Response 1 (cross-discipline)	5	By Week 10
Peer Response 2 (same-family/prior role)	5	By Week 10
Stage 3: Reflection (after faculty feedback)	10	By Week 14
Total per semester	30

Syllabus addendum language (per IRB protocol §5.2): "As an Honors section, this course participates in the Honors Program's common assessment of interdisciplinary reasoning... Scoring may be assisted by AI tools with human oversight. Assessment data may be used in aggregate for program improvement and educational research."

⚙ Scoring Workflow

👤

Director

Handles ~80-90% of scoring using derived rubric. All four components + narrative feedback per artifact.

🔍

Calibration Reviewer (Jeremy)

10% sample review for inter-rater reliability. Scores compared; discrepancies discussed and resolved.

📜 Program Bylaws (Amended May 14, 2021)

PSLO 3 Heatmap — Course-Level (1&2) vs. Program-Level (3&4)

🔬 The Causal Chain

Faculty strengthen Components 1 & 2 → students carry stronger lenses → stronger lenses reveal Component 3 → visible limits produce substantive Component 4 → PSLO 3 improves. Only the Director sees both data streams.

Note: No published empirical evidence exists for this causal chain in any institutional context. This represents a hypothesis to be tested — potentially a landmark contribution if demonstrated with outcome data. (Literature review, March 2026)

Equity disaggregation: Cohen's d by IPEDS categories. Flag where d ≥ 0.5. Aligned to Montenegro & Jankowski (2020) guidelines and HLC 2025 Criterion 3.G requirement for timely, disaggregated data.

Seal of Excelencia Alignment

Not yet assessed — placeholder for future Data/Practice/Leadership mapping

Student Journeys — Four-Semester Arc

Enrollment Management & GPA Enforcement

Maintain the master eligibility roster (3.0+ GPA, application complete, letters of recommendation per Bylaws §5). When faculty upload section rosters, crossReferenceGPA() runs automatically and flags mismatches.

📋 Master Eligibility Roster

Eligible Students

GPA Warning (1 sem <3.0)

Removal Pending (2 sem <3.0)

Student	ID	GPA	Application	Letters	Status	Semester
Maria Gonzalez	MG-2026	3.45	✓	2/2	Active	S2
James Chen	JC-2025	3.72	✓	2/2	Active	S4
Aaliyah Thompson	AT-2026	2.94	✓	2/2	GPA Warning	S1
Marcus Williams	MW-2025	2.71	✓	2/2	Removal Pending	S3 (2 sem <3.0)

Grace period policy (per Bylaws §5): One semester below 3.0 = GPA Warning. Two consecutive semesters below 3.0 = removal from program. Director contacts student and advisor.

🔍 Faculty Roster Cross-Reference — Fall 2026

Faculty upload section CSVs from Brightspace. System matches against EligibilityRoster automatically. Director reviews flags within the schedule revision period.

Course	Faculty	Roster Uploaded	Enrolled	Program	Schedule Only	⚠ Flagged
PHIL 105-HND	J. Basso	✓ Aug 19	18	14	3	1
PSYCH 201-HND	S. Kosipa	✓ Aug 19	22	18	4	0
PHIL 107-HND	J. Basso	✓ Aug 20	15	12	2	1
SPEECH 101-HND	J. Basso	✗ Pending	—	—	—	—
LIT 128-HND	M. Harbison	✓ Aug 19	12	10	1	1
SOC 201-HND	P. Walsh	✓ Aug 21	16	13	3	0

Advisor Reminders — CCC Academic Calendar Integration

Enter advisor contacts. The system fetches dates from the live CCC academic calendar and sends templated reminders automatically. No manual date entry — when CCC updates the calendar, reminders update automatically.

Calendar source: https://colleges.ccc.edu/credit-academic-calendar/ — fetched live via fetchCalendarDates(). Last fetched: Aug 12, 2026. Next auto-fetch: Aug 19, 2026.

📧 Advisor Contact List

Advisor	Email	Students Assigned	Last Reminded	Action
Lisa Martinez	[email protected]	14	Aug 12	Send Now
Robert Chen	[email protected]	11	Aug 12	Send Now
Angela Williams	[email protected]	9	Aug 5	Send Now

Advisor Name

📅 Semester Calendar — Automated Trigger Points

Dates fetched from live CCC academic calendar. Reminders auto-send to all advisors at trigger windows. Templates are editable below.

Calendar Event	Date (Live)	Trigger Window	Reminder Content	Status
Open Registration	Jul 15, 2026	1 week before	"Honors sections require 3.0 GPA. Please verify student eligibility before registration."	Sent Jul 8
Late Registration	Aug 23, 2026	Day of	"Last day to register for honors sections. Confirm all registered students meet 3.0 minimum."	Scheduled
First Day of Class	Aug 19, 2026	Day of	"Faculty: upload your Brightspace roster CSV today. GPA cross-reference runs automatically."	Scheduled
Schedule Revision Period	Aug 19–30, 2026	Duration	"Schedule revision period open. Ineligible students should be redirected to non-honors sections."	Scheduled
Midpoint	Oct 12, 2026	Day of	"Midpoint: verify honors students are on track. Cross-disciplinary feedback should be underway."	Pending
Last Day for Withdrawal	Nov 6, 2026	1 week before	"Last day for student-initiated withdrawal approaching. Review any at-risk honors students."	Pending

CRITICAL: Calendar dates are live variables. fetchCalendarDates() scrapes the CCC academic calendar page on each check. No manual date entry. No stored dates. When CCC updates the calendar, the system's reminders update automatically. Director only enters advisor email addresses — the calendar handles itself.

Events & Calendar — Program-Wide Event Management

Create events once. Tag by audience. Each role sees only what's relevant to them. Students see student events. Committee sees governance deadlines. Faculty sees submission windows. You see everything.

✚ Create New Event

Event Title

Date

Time (optional)

Event Type

Description

Audience Tags (select all that apply — determines who sees this event)

👤 Student 📚 Faculty ⚖ Committee 🌐 All

📅 Master Calendar — All Events

Institutional Reporting — Auto-Generated from Survey Data + Scores

Faculty fill out three surveys across their course rotation. The system generates all reporting outputs automatically. One input stream, six reporting purposes.

📋

Form 1: Assessment Plan

From all Game Plan surveys

📊

Form 2: Outcomes Report

From Scores + Game Plan + Adjustment

📈

Form 3A: Improvement

From Adjustment surveys + Director analysis

🔄

Form 3B: Close the Loop

From Reflection surveys + longitudinal Scores

🏛️

NCHC Program Review

Voluntary external review

📑

Director Report

Identity roster + equity + all exports

🔗 Assessment Hub Bridge — Cross-Platform Data Feed

When ready, push completed Form data from the Honors Hub to the Assessment Reporting & Review Hub. The Assessment Hub's Coordinator and Chair views will receive the data for institutional review. This is a one-way feed — the Honors Hub generates, the Assessment Hub reviews.

Assessment Hub Data Bridge

Status: Not connected — enable when scored data is available

Form	Honors Hub	Assessment Hub	Last Push
Form 1: Assessment Plan	Pending Pilot	—	Never
Form 2: Outcomes Report	Pending Pilot	—	Never
Form 3A: Improvement	Pending Pilot	—	Never
Form 3B: Close the Loop	Pending Pilot	—	Never

HLC 2025 Revised Criteria — Compliance Evidence Map

Effective September 1, 2025. Four criteria (consolidated from five). Evidence auto-generated from Hub data.

⚖ Common Honors CSLO — Committee Feedback Results

Live results from the CSLO feedback form sent to the committee. Likert scores (1–5) and open-ended responses update as members submit.

Loading feedback data...

📝 Grading Queue — Student Artifacts Pending Review

Artifacts submitted by students awaiting Director scoring. The 10% verification sample is routed to volunteer committee members after Director scores are entered.

Pending

Scored

In Verification

Complete

Student	Course	Identity	Stage	Status	Action
Grading queue populates after Fall 2026 pilot launch. Students submit artifacts through the Honors Brightspace shell → the Hub pulls them into this queue.

Scoring workflow: Student submits artifact → appears in this queue → Director scores all four components → 10% random sample auto-routed to committee member for independent verification → discrepancies flagged for discussion → scores finalized → heatmap updates → Forms auto-generate.

	1	2	3	4	5
The overall Common CSLO is appropriate
C1: Fidelity to methods
C2: Evidence integration
C3: Blind spot recognition
C4: Peer engagement