GE Program Assessment, AY Goal – Provide valid, reliable information on student performance in foundational domains of GE that can: guide GE review suggest curricular changes to enhance student learning AY 05-06: Assessment of 3 broad domains – writing, quantitative reasoning, oral communication

GE Program Assessment, AY Need to move beyond usual course- level assessment GE Program Assessment is called for in AAO MOU that administers GE on campus How are our students doing in the broad skill/knowledge domains covered in GE? Can’t be answered by course-level assessment

Solving the GE Assessment puzzle … Manageable, Meaningful, Sustainable Manageable: don’t want to overburden already hard working faculty Meaningful: provide valid, reliable information of relevance to questions of academic quality Sustainable: KISS rule … assessment must be an ongoing process

Methodology Mission, Goals, Student Learning Outcomes model … adapting assessment methods used for baccalaureate programs to GE Mission, goals provided by EM Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for GE derived, by faculty, from GE goals Student performance on SLOs observed/ measured in GE courses Assessment results analyzed, guide curricular change and reform

Methodology (cont’d) Direct Assessment: Measure/observe actual student performance on the skills/knowledge we value (SLOs) Embedded Assessment: Measure/ observe student performance on existing tasks Close the Loop: Results guide changes aimed at improving student learning

Structure GE on this campus governed by a series of “rules” Title 5, EO 595, EM 99-05, AAO-MOU GEAC advises Provost on GE, including assessment AURA responsible for assisting faculty with baccalaureate program and GE assessment Need to build collaborative structure

Coordinating Committee: AURA Chair, GEAC Chair, Dean Undergraduate Studies GEAC General Education Advisory Committee AURA All University Responsibility for Assessment Committee Task Forces: 1 (Oral Communication), 2 (Writing), 3 (Quantitative reasoning). Each Task Force has an AURA member, GEAC member, and an additional faculty member. Provost

Process Goal: GE Program Assessment must be Manageable, Meaningful, Sustainable Participatory … faculty input How to build-in faculty input? Produce valid, reliable, timely results Consequential … results should guide GE reform

Process (cont’d) Task Forces are working groups that lead effort Task Forces consult with additional faculty throughout process Task Forces coordinate efforts, do much of the actual work involved Task Forces report results to Provost and campus community

Task Force 2: Writing Chris Fosen, GEAC, ENGL, Chair Sarah Blackstone, AURA, HFA Judith Rodby, ENGL Additional faculty with expertise, interest Task Force 1: Oral Communication Ruth Guzley, AURA, CMST, Chair Mitch Johns, GEAC, AGRIC Susan Avanzino, CMST Additional faculty with expertise, interest Task Force 3: Quantitative Reasoning Margaret Owens, AURA, NS, Chair Russ Mills, GEAC, CIVL Jack Ladwig, MATH Additional faculty with expertise, interest Coordinating Committee : 1. Fernlund (AURA), 2. Loker (Dean UED) 3. Alger (GEAC)

Process (cont’d) Using EM 99-05, Task Forces define SLOs, in consultation with faculty Using SLOs, Task Forces work with faculty to analyze curriculum, determine “sites for assessment” Task Forces work with faculty to select assignments for “embedded assessment”

Process (cont’d) Task Forces, in collaboration with faculty, devise rubrics for assessing student work Student work collected (Spring 06) using STEPS process where possible Task Forces and faculty work to achieve “inter-rater reliability” in assessing student work

Process (cont’d) Task Forces and faculty assess student work using rubrics and standards agreed upon for this purpose Assessment results analyzed with an eye to spotting areas for improvement in student performance, curriculum Results and recommendations written up and conveyed to Provost, campus

1. Task Forces Formed 9/05 2. Task Forces consult with faculty on GE SLOs 10/05 3. Task Forces & faculty analyze curriculum for “assessment sites” 10-11/05 4. Task Forces & faculty select assignments, develop rubrics, 11/05 5. Student work collected from appropriate courses Sp Assessment of student work by Task Forces & faculty April- May Assessment results analyzed and written up Summer Results reported to Provost, campus August 06

Outcomes Assessment results form basis for change/reform of GE Further GE Program Assessment carried out in AY … critical thinking and breadth areas Assess assessment: How’d we do? GE reforms designed and implemented in AY 07-08?

Conclusion “Jazz” assessment: new process, will require creativity, improvisation Participatory assessment … faculty input “Learning” organization … we need to learn about GE Culture of evidence … change in GE should be based on evidence Focus on student learning … #1 priority Transparency and accountability … no hidden agendas