1. Evaluating and Improving Foundations: General Education & Assessment Mo Noonan-Bischof Elaine M. Klein Nancy Westphal-Johnson

2. Challenges Institutional size Limited resources Accountability demands Slow pace of institutional change +/- of “strong governance” system Culture of decentralized (“bottom- up”) decision-making – and mistrust of centralized (“top- down”) authority “Cafeteria style” vs. “core curriculum”

3. Challenges @ UW-Madison Before 1994, no requirements common to all undergraduate schools/colleges except Ethnic Studies “Cafeteria-style” GER, with distributed responsibility for course review –University Gen Ed Committee - Comm, QR, Ethnic Studies –College of Letters and Science - Breadth –BUT: any school or college can amend or interpret the requirements

4. Assessment, Stage 1 Access: Convene Verbal Assessment Project (but focus on access) Accommodate: Adjust “Quantitative Assessment Project” to new use (without changing it) Accountability: Conduct Regent- mandated Ethnic Studies investigation Avoidance: No assessment of general breadth

5. Assessment, Stage 2 Focus: are we promoting learning? Can we improve on what we do? Comm A – survey perceptions of learning, plan evaluation of papers QR studies –test/retest, survey of perceptions of learning Ethnic Studies –curriculum mapping Breadth – mini-focus groups (students), survey of instructor perceptions

6. What changed? We learned from what we did, and we changed.

7. Case Study 1: Communication B Focus on methods of effective communication instruction – NOT to content Distributed WIDELY across curriculum –Many departments participate –Faculty, staff instructors, TA’s –Lectures and discussion sections Linked to resources (TA support)

8. Comm B study Faculty/staff committee designed study Sampled papers broadly from across many sections, lectures –NO sections produced enough artifacts to evaluate instructor, course, section Panel of raters trained to evaluate quality of writing in terms of program goals (not course content) Surveyed students about attitudes toward writing Developed program level recommendations for improvement

9. What we learned Involve people who have a stake in the outcome Focus on learning in the program (not individual students, faculty, or courses) Articulate criteria/outcomes clearly to focus on assessing learning Look at LEARNING to focus attention on what matters most

10. Results promote change, support improvement, AND show utility of assessment Social science research methods work really well A good study builds trust – fewer people object to the assessment of GER

11. What I wish we knew then… Be strategic – use local experts, sampling strategies, focus on important questions, etc. Build on institutional identity “Decentralized” can also mean “flexible” Focus on immediate needs, but grow and change, too

12. 2008 Assessment Plan We are not creating a “culture of assessment” - We are building on an existing culture of “evidence-based decision-making” We need to define and describe within the existing GER framework –AAC&U’s “Liberal Education and America’s Promise” and the “UW- Madison Experience” Promise: We act on results

13. In a nutshell Administration of Assessment is a dynamic process that itself requires evaluation and improvement. Despite challenges, institutions can obtain useful assessment results. Results can provide useful tools for communicating with a variety of audiences about the institution.