1. CORE General Education Assessment:
A Plan for the University of Maryland
College Park

2. The CORE Assessment Planning Team
William Adams, Professor Emeritus, Mathematics
Elizabeth Bergmann Loizeaux, Associate Professor and Associate Dean, ARHU
William Montgomery, Professor, Music, and Chair, Senate CORE Committee
Phyllis Peres, Associate Professor and Associate Provost
Joelle Presson, Associate Director of Undergraduate Academic Programs, College of Chemical and Life Sciences
Katherine McAdams, (team leader), Associate Professor and Associate Dean, UGST

3. The CORE plan grows out of past progress:
2003 – Provost establishes a Commission on Learning Outcomes Assessment
2003 to 2005 – Learning Outcomes stated for each category of CORE/ General Education.
February 2006 – Assessment planning for CORE

4. Our plan provides... CORE Assessment Guidelines
CORE Assessment Procedures
A five year cycle of assessment that proceeds by CORE category
Faculty working groups, similar to CORE subcommittees that have been suspended
Provisions for confidentiality of data and aggregate reporting of results
Faculty interpretation and dissemination of results
An Assessment Timeline for CORE that begins in March 2006

5. …and goes forward to assess General Education.
March 2006 – Assessment Plans due for all academic programs
March 2006 – All CORE courses mapped to specific learning outcomes
March and April 2006 –
Faculty Working Groups formed for each CORE category.

6. April – December 2006 – Faculty Working Groups develop CORE category assessment measures and research designs.
January 2007 – Assessment begins with the CORE Diversity category.

7. Our plan raises questions…
About campus-wide integration of Assessments of CORE, of Academic Units, of Student Affairs and of Administrative Units.
About connections between Assessment experts, campus administration, and the Faculty Senate.
About control of feedback on Assessment findings.

8. In planning for CORE assessment, we learned:
That faculty must be at the heart of assessment processes.
That a diverse team of faculty and administrators provides wisdom and synergy.
That competing needs on our campus may be addressed by a balanced plan to ease tensions among priorities.

9. Tensions include Faculty burdens/faculty involvement
Campus level/course or department level
Realistic effort/comprehensive effort
Motivated students/over-assessed students
Assessing student learning/assessing the CORE program

10. Our plan resolves major tensions
Faculty are involved without burdensome increases in work for CORE administration.
Assessment data will be useful at both the campus and classroom levels.
Assessment focus is on student learning.

11. In creating the plan, we gained…
An appreciation of the University’s previous work in Learning Outcomes and Assessment.
Confidence that our plan is useful and well considered.
A desire to take our plan forward.

12. As we worked, we realized…
How our work flows naturally from the previous work on Assessment at Maryland.
That we are witnessing the growth of a culture of assessment on our campus.
That our small effort here has large implications.

13. Thank you.
We will be happy to entertain questions on the proposed plan.