1. General Education Assessment Revision Plan Proposal
D. Kent Johnson, PhD
Director of Assessment and Program Review

2. Why this discussion, Why now?
Review of course level assessments reveals that current general education program lacks coherence suggesting that students are not able to connect general education and the major in meaningful ways
Need to increase curricular efficiency in a tight budgetary environment, and commitment to improving student success evidenced by improved persistence to graduation indicate that this is a good time to begin a discussion of general education programmatic changes

3. What the proposal is, What it is not
The proposal is two related but independent proposals:
Primary proposal it is an assessment strategy intended to help ensure that all students achieve the statewide General Education SLO’s and (along with our programmatic assessment) to communicate the distinctive quality of graduates and a PFW baccalaureate degree to our external constituents.
Secondary proposal is grounded in research on best practice and represents my recommendation of how we might change general education to improve the integration of general education and the major to increase curricular coherence, efficiency, and student success.
The proposal is not:
An attempt to change general education with token involvement from faculty
Anywhere close to final…

4. Provide Input
Link:

5. Current General Education and General Education Assessment
Challenges:
No assurance all outcomes assessed
No confidence in or consensus of expected levels of learning relative to SLOs – reliability issues
Cannot identify extent to which planned learning experiences at course or program level actually support student learning relative to SLOs

6. Current General Education and GE Assessment
Challenges (cont.):
Some courses partially meet outcomes across multiple GE Areas
No assurance students meet all outcomes
Level expected of some SLOs are too high for lower division courses

7. Challenges Addressed in Proposed Revision of
General Education Assessment
Proposed Change
Challenges Addressed
General Education Courses are required to be approved in only one category
1,4,5
General Education Courses must meet and assess all SLOs for category
4,5
Common expectations for learning set and student learning assessed for each SLO
2,3,6
3 Year Assessment Cycle for all General Education Areas 5
Restructure with Interdisciplinary/Creative as a 300 Level Integrative Experience
2,3
Restructure Capstone as a 400 level requirement
2,3,5
Signature Assessment Framework and required Assessment using Common Rubric
2,5,6

8. Reporting Cycle by SLO Group (Sample)
GE Assessment Cycle
Reporting Cycle by SLO Group (Sample)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
SLO Group Assessed
Assessment
Report
Reviewed
Written Communication
Speaking and Listening
Quantitative Reasoning
Scientific Ways of Knowing
Social and Behavioral Ways of Knowing
Humanistic Ways of Knowing
Artistic Ways of Knowing
7.1
7.2
7.3
Interdisciplinary/Creative Ways of Knowing
8.3
8.4
Capstone Experience

9. Annual Assessment Report Template Example
Completed, Submitted Annually. Reviewed in Year Three.
GE Outcome
Teaching /Learning Activity
Student Produce or Performance from TL Activity
Measure
(e.g. Rubric)
Assessment of Student Learning Performance
1.7
Guided Inquiry Activities:
Determining relevant sources exercise
Lecture on evaluating sources
Electronic Data Base Hunt
Three paragraph description of search strategy and an Annotated Bibliography
GE SLO 1.7 Rubric
Rubric Level
# Students
Capstone 14
Milestone 2
Milestone 1 3
Benchmark
Total 34
Course
Section
Outcome: GE SLO 1.7
Number of Students Achieving Level of Learning Relative to Rubric Below
Capstone (4)
Milestone 2 (3)
Milestone 1 (2)
Benchmark (1)
 01 3  10 2
 02 11 4 1
TOTAL
All Sections 14 3

10. Annual Assessment Report Example(cont.)
Planning Questions:
Describe your assessment findings for the course. (How and/or to what extent did students achieve the expected learning outcome?)
We expected 70% of students to demonstrate capstone level in the assignment. Section 2 had added a library exercise based on last semester's results and approached 70% at capstone level while Section 1 did not. A comparison of the two sections revealed that the two day exercise in the library with a resource specialist on search strategies and identifying valid sources in electronic data bases likely contributed to the difference in performance. An analysis of variance was conducted on the results of a pre-test in both sections and revealed no significant difference. This suggested the two groups were comparable and approached equivalence. The addition of the library exercise was the only difference.
Describe changes you are planning in your course to help improve student learning relative to the outcome assessed.
Students in all sections will spend one to two class periods in a structured learning environment with the library resource specialist to demonstrate selection of valid electronic sources. In addition, we are adding resource materials in Blackboard on selecting electronic data bases.

11. End of Year Three Discussion
Planning Questions:
Using the three annual reports, describe changes made over the three year period
Summarize how changes impacted student performance
Discuss plans for the course moving forward

12. Components of How We Might Choose to Assess
Common institutionally agreed upon rubrics – as a starting point, the AAC&U Value Rubrics (examples provided in Proposal Appendix, See for history of rubric development)
A peer validation process to help teams of faculty apply the rubrics consistently across a wide variety of student products (training provided based on SHEEO/AAC&U Multi-State Collaborative process, See for more information)
Signature assignment development using NILOA’s Charrette Process (see the DQP Assignment Toolkit for more information

13. Higher Learning, 48:1, 6-15, DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2016.1121080
Defining a Signature Assignment?
An assignment that “…meets a set of broad specifications for a particular area…” of a core curriculum.
Pat Hutchings, Natasha A. Jankowski & Kathryn E. Schultz (2016) Designing
Effective Classroom Assignments: Intellectual Work Worth Sharing, Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 48:1, 6-15, DOI: /

14. Part 2: Enhancing Coherence in General Education
Disclaimer (also made in January prior to distribution). The proposed changes to structure are intended as a beginning point. It is, in some respects a proposal independent from the assessment proposal
Proposal is based on current trends in general education reform based on best practices in general education
It assumes continued compliance with Indiana’s common general education outcomes and core approach
It is a starting point for discussion, debate, etc.

15. Coherence, Meaning, and Communicative Frames
Curricular coherence is planned by faculty – it is how a group of faculty perceives knowledge might progress and hold together across a program
Meaning is achieved by students – it occurs as students construct knowledge within and across domains in a program
Curriculum can be seen as a form of complex communication existing in the interaction of students, faculty, and all the formal and informal elements in the teaching and learning exchange. From this perspective the proposed General Education Model is also a communicative framework for the program.

16. Organizing a Coherent General Education Experience
Scientific
Ways of Knowing
Social/Behavioral
Humanistic
Artistic
Quantitative Reasoning
Written Communication
Speaking and Listening
Interdisciplinary or
Creative
Creative or
Interdisciplinary
Major
Capstone
100 Level
200
Level
300 Level
400 Level