1. ASSESSMENT OF THE GEN ED PROGRAM – 2015-16
GEN ED 2.0 TASK FORCE
21 SEPTEMBER 2016

2. Overview Part 1: Why we assess.
Part 2: How we currently assess the UMKC Gen Ed Core.
Part 3: What we found in
Part 4: What we are learning from the findings.

3. Three (or more) levels of assessment
Course-level assessment
Program-level assessment (degree, minor, certificate)
Institutional-level assessment – the Gen Ed Program

4. Part 1: Why we assess.
Why do we engage in assessment?

5. The fine print Accountability
State regulations
HLC criteria
If we engage effectively in assessment, we will meet external demands for accountability.

6. Why we assess
Assessment helps us make sure that we are fulfilling the promises we make to our students and to society (Suskie, 2010; Finley, 2014)
Our promises to students:
Institutional mission and values statements
Program’s mission statement
Program’s student learning outcomes
What is an SLO? How do we know one when we see it? What student are able to do = <action verb> = <one something>
Parallel with outcomes for advising/advisors – demonstration of abilty

7. Purposes of Assessment
Ensuring that we are delivering on what we care about:
Students get the best possible education
Students have access to the best possible learning environments, co-curricular programs, and support systems
Ensuring that learning inside and outside the classroom is of appropriate scope, depth, and rigor
Asking – and answering - questions we care about concerning student learning and development
Identifying and preserving good practices in supporting student learning

8. The Important Questions
Three questions to answer through assessment of student learning outcomes (SLOs):
What have our students learned?
Are we satisfied with what they’ve learned?
If not, what are we going to do about it? (Eder, 2010)

9. Part 2: How we currently assess the General Education Core1.
1We will continue to assess the core we have.
We will continue to assess the core we have.

10. Three methods – two direct, one indirect
Authentic Assessment of Gen Ed SLOs
Review of student artifacts2 from gen ed courses
ETS Proficiency Profile – standardized exam required of baccalaureate-seeking students prior to graduation
Reading, critical thinking, writing, and mathematics
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Experiences with Writing Module
2student work produced as a normal part of course requirements
Eligible to sit for ETS PP after complete 90 hours

11. How we got to where we are.

12. Process – Artifact Collection
Reviewed number of courses offered in Spring 2016
Discourse 200, Anchor 200, and Focus A grouping had more than others
Drew random sample of 125 students for each course category
Sent to instructors with names of students drawn in sample with information on submitting student artifacts and assignment guidelines
Docs sent to me, stripped of faculty and student identifiers

13. Process – Artifact Review
Three rubrics developed based on AAC&U VALUE rubrics – reviewed by UAC and GECC (posted on Assessment Website)
Review panel members recruited – Jerry Wyckoff and others
Panels convened on May 24 and 25, 2016
18 faculty and staff panel members plus three facilitators
Panel members received honoraria of $200 + meals
Rubric norming – 3 groups (Anchor, Discourse, Focus)
Each artifact reviewed by at least two panel members

14. Part 3: What we found in

15. Authentic Assessment: Results - Summary

16. General Education Core Assessment – Spring 2016: Anchor 200, Discourse 200, Focus A
Summary Data Tables
Outcomes for which students are meeting or exceeding expectations?
Outcomes for which student are not meeting expectations?

17. Meeting expectations:
Discourse 200:
Context and Purpose
Content Development
Genre or Disciplinary Conventions
Syntax and Mechanics
Anchor 200: Contextualize Information
69% achieving 4 or higher OK for 200 level?
Focus A: (Small Ns) Analyze Human Condition – Methods and Sources
68% OK? Also developed in Discourse
69%

18. Outcomes on which student not meeting expectations?
Interdisciplinary Thinking –
Anchor 200: Think beyond the discipline - 21% achieved a 4 or higher
Focus A: Analyze connection with other areas of inquiry - 22%
Culture and Diversity
Anchor 200: Describe Global Culture – 49%
Anchor 200: Describe Culture Identity Factors – 44%
Discourse 200: Culture or Global Diversity – 56%
Only courses in which specifically addressed in gen ed program
Findings are a product of how the SLOs are written, how the educational experiences are designed to achieve the SLOs, and how the assignments are designed to elicit the desired learning outcomes – and how they are assessed.

19. Some Lessons Learned Some Gen Ed SLOs - revise to ensure measurable
Version 2.0 must ensure outcomes are measurable
Set targets for student achievement – What is good enough?
Course design –
Course SLOs must be mapped to identified Gen Ed SLOs
Educational experiences must be present to support achievement of SLOs
Assignments must be designed to elicit the identified SLOs
Observation by Panel Members: The clearer and more detailed the assignment, the better the quality of student work

20. ETS® Proficiency Profile
Administered to senior students
Eligible after complete 90 hours
Must sit for the exam prior to graduating
Who has heard of the EPP? How long has UMKC required the EPP? Prior to today, who has seen the results?

21. About the ETS® Proficiency Profile (EPP)
a nationally-normed, multiple-choice test
designed to assess students’ abilities in four areas:
mathematics, reading, writing, and critical thinking
the learning outcomes are tested within the context of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, although (disclaimer) the exam does not measure specific content in these areas, as all needed information is contained in the questions.
results are reported annually to the Missouri Department of Higher Education, as required by State statute and the policies of the Coordinating Board of Higher Education.

22. What are the data telling us?
What are the institutional trend date telling us?
What are/should be our expectations for student achievement?
What are the comparative data telling us?
How can we use these data?

23. About the NSSE
administered to first-year and senior students (every three year’s at UMKC)
survey designed to evaluate
students’ engagement in programs that support their learning and personal development, and
the institution’s support of evidence-based good practices in undergraduate education, e.g., high-impact practices

24. Experience with Writing Module
result of a collaboration between NSSE and the Council of Writing Program Administrators.
Items touch on three aspects of good writing assignments— interactivity, meaning-making, and clarity.
complements questions on the core survey about how much writing students do, the nature of their course assignments, and perceived gains in written expression.

25. What are the Experience with Writing data telling us?
Are the results at a level you expected?
Are the results at a level that is acceptable?

26. Part 4: What we are learning from the findings.

27. What are the implications of the data?
Ensure Gen Ed SLOs are measurable
Design of the Gen Ed Program:
ensure that there are sufficient and appropriate educational experiences to support achievement of the desired outcomes;
ensure that there are assignments designed to elicit the SLOs and that can be assessed across the program; and
set appropriate targets for student achievement in the aggregate of the SLOs (what is good enough).
Ensure there is a feedback loop for assessment results and accountability for making programmatic/course alternations to enhance student learning
General Education is everyone’s responsibility