1. Baccalaureate Reform: Strategies to Move Forward Marilee J. Bresciani, Ph.D. Professor, Postsecondary Education Leadership and Co-Director of the Center for Educational Leadership, Innovation, and Policy San Diego State University 3590 Camino Del Rio North San Diego, California, U.S.A. 619-594-8318 Marilee.Bresciani@mail.sdsu.edu

2. Bresciani, M.J. Session Outcomes  Define the national context for accountability of general learning expectations  Articulate questions to consider when drafting the assessment plan for your baccalaureate goals (BGs)  Posit questions to stimulate further thought

3. Bresciani, M.J. Expectation  “If the constituents of higher education expect that we, in higher education, are providing education for the future economic growth and intellectual development of regions within the U.S.; what does this mean for how we design, deliver, and evaluate general learning?” - Higher Education Act draft

4. In other words…  We are being held accountable for general learning expectations by the public.  The disciplines are taking care of accountability via professional accreditation/certification. Bresciani, M.J.

5. So, the Question Remains…  So, what do we know about how effective our design and delivery of the BGs are?  How well equipped are we to evaluate that learning?  What do we think we need to do next? Bresciani, M.J.

6. Report Out Bresciani, M.J.

7. Tips from Good Practice Institutions (Bresciani, 2007)  They clearly communicate the purpose of the programs that deliver their general learning  There is cross institutional buy-in to the purpose  There is cross institutional buy-in to the outcomes and in some cases assessment methods, if appropriate

8. Bresciani, M.J. Tips from Good Practice Institutions (Bresciani, 2007)  They clearly define their expected learning through learning outcomes  They align the process for creating the expected learning with the manner in which they evaluate the learning  They “advertise” the variances in their processes  They advertise the “success” of their general education

9. Bresciani, M.J. Tips, Cont. (Bresciani, 2007)  They invite peer critiques, internal to their organization and external to their organization  They use testimonials to demonstrate their effectiveness  Some articulate expectations of and investments in to students and faculty  Some are mindful of their ”inputs”

10. Note  That we are avoiding the conversation about comparability of data derived from outcomes-based assessment (OBA) across institutions.  My colleagues and I have theories about “testing” a process to compare OBA generated learning data across institutions with regard to writing, speaking, critical thinking, and analytical reasoning Bresciani, M.J

11. First Question  Do you consider your BGs an academic program?  And if so, how does the classification of the BGs as a program contribute to the ways in which you carry out your assessment of the BGs? Bresciani, M.J.

12. Second Question  Who claims ownership for the design, deliver, and evaluation of the BGs? Bresciani, M.J.

13. Modalities of General Learning Expectations  Distribution Model - - the cafeteria model where students select one of several general learning course offerings  Common Intellectual Model - - all students take one or a small set of required core courses  Thematic Required Courses – course labeled as writing intensive or critical thinking Bresciani, M.J.

14. Modalities, Cont.  Upper-Level Requirements - gen learning courses that are integrated into upper level required course such as writing across the curriculum would be interpreted as writing for mechanical engineers for instance  Core Curriculum - all students take the same set of core courses Bresciani, M.J.

15. Modalities, Cont.  Learning Communities – courses required for specific communities of learners, could be for first year initiatives or transition programs as an example.  Anything else? Tying it to program review Bresciani, M.J.

16. What is the Learning?  Knowledge-Based  Skills-Based  Combination Bresciani, M.J.

17. Priority and Responsibility  Is there an institutional commitment to evaluating the BGs in your institution?  Who is being held responsible for doing this?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of your approach? Bresciani, M.J.

18. Goals and Outcomes  Do you have clearly articulated outcomes?  Are those outcomes aligned to institutional goals?  To program goals?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of your approach? Bresciani, M.J.

19. Roles, Responsibilities, and Timelines  Whose role is it to collect and aggregate data?  Synthesize the data?  Determine whether the level of learning is acceptable?  Determine what needs to be improved?  Determine who should be involved in improving it?  When this should all happen? Bresciani, M.J.

20. Next Questions  How do the results generated from your BG assessment plan feed into assessment and program review of various disciplines?  Who takes responsibility to see that this is done in a meaningful and manageable way? Bresciani, M.J.

21. Other Questions  How do BG assessment results inform the evaluation or refinement of strategic planning, strategic initiatives, and institutional general learning principles?  How does your campus re-allocate resources to address needed improvements in BGs? Bresciani, M.J.

22. Other Questions  How do you approach the need, if there is one, to compare BG results across disciplines and then, if interested, across institutions? Do you allow the outcomes to drive the assessment measures, or the assessment measures to drive the expected learning? Bresciani, M.J.

23. And More  How do you communicate the results of your BG assessment to various constituents? Bresciani, M.J.

24. Review questions in the handout Chapter One of Bresciani, 2007 Handouts from the New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability http://www.newleadershipalliance.org/ Bresciani, M.J.

25. Some Tips  Don’t under estimate the power of pilot programs  Refine your curriculum approval processes – tie it to outcomes  Invest in drafting the curriculum alignment matrix/map  Share rubrics – See http://www.aacu.org/leap/vision.cfm for ideas http://www.aacu.org/leap/vision.cfm  Determine how indicators/standardized instruments align with outcomes and courses Bresciani, M.J.

26. Additional Questions to Consider (Bresciani, 2008)  Is our institution clear on the purpose of general learning ? Skills Knowledge Dispositions A combination of the aforementioned Enhance the discipline

27. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  How widely shared is the purpose of general learning?  How widely adopted is the commitment to practice that purpose across the institution?

28. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  How does the purpose of general learning fit into the larger focus of expected learning within the discipline?  The institution?  The region?  The world?

29. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont. Do we want general learning to contribute to economic growth? Do we want general learning to contribute to intellectual development?

30. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  Do we understand the purpose of general learning in the context of a market analysis? What kind of learning is needed?  Now and in the future What kind of learning is desired?  Now and in the future

31. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  Who are the consumers of the general learning? The students? Their employers? Their graduate schools? The faculty within the disciplines?

32. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  Are your consumers local? Or international?  What price point can the consumer afford?  How can you make the learning more affordable?

33. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  What is the plan to develop the general learning curriculum?  Who is involved in development?  With whom can we partner?  What are the intended end results?

34. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  What resources are needed to design the curriculum and what is the cost?  What is needed to deliver the curriculum and what are the costs?  What is the cost to get the student to be able to receive and apply the curriculum?

35. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  What could be out-sourced to make the learning more affordable without sacrificing quality?  Can quality be sacrificed to make learning more affordable? Or more accessible?

36. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  What are the net learning gains projected and by when?  Who are the potential investors in general learning?  When can they expect to see a return on their investment?

37. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont.  How will we determine the quality of the general learning?  Situational within subject  Transferable to discipline  Transferable to the co-curricular  Comparison Within subject across discipline within institution Within subject across institutions Within subject across discipline across institutions

38. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont. How will we compare that quality of learning with our competitors? How do we determine who the competitors are? How will we use consumer ratings in our comparison reporting?

39. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont. How will we use experts’ ratings of our general learning in comparison reporting?  What internal and external influences on quality will we take into account? Do we stay within our regional market when comparing? Or is our market broader than our region?

40. Bresciani, M.J. Questions to Consider, Cont. What is the plan for marketing the general learning?  To whom are we marketing?  How and what will we market? Description of what general learning is What you have to do to participate What you will get from participating The overall benefits of having the learning

41. Questions or Thoughts? Marilee.Bresciani@mail.sdsu.edu

42. Bresciani, M.J. References  Bresciani, M. J. (June 11, 2008). Presenting General Learning within a Bottom-line Business World, Part I. Net Results: NASPA’s E-Zine for Student Affairs Professionals. http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cfm? id=1642 http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cfm? id=1642  Bresciani, M. J. (July 9, 2008). Presenting General Learning within a Bottom-line Business World, Part II. Net Results: NASPA’s E-Zine for Student Affairs Professionals. http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cfm? id=1650

43. Bresciani, M.J. References, Cont.  Bresciani, M. J. (October 10, 2007). Accountability in higher education: Driven by business or social responsibility (Part I). Net Results: NASPA’s E-Zine for Student Affairs Professionals. http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cf m?id=1606  Bresciani, M. J. (October 24, 2007). Accountability in higher education: Driven by business or social responsibility (Part II). Net Results: NASPA’s E-Zine for Student Affairs Professionals. http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cf m?id=1609

44. Bresciani, M.J. References, Cont.  Bresciani, M. J. (Ed.). (2007). Good practice case studies for assessing student learning in general education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.  Higher Education Act Drafts and Amendments  Jaschik, S. (November 20, 2007). Another Call for Assessment. insidehighered.com