1. Team Members Savannah, Georgia Institutional Profile Founded in 1935 in historic downtown Savannah, Georgia as a junior college, Armstrong is now a part of the University System of Georgia and eligible to offer doctoral degrees. Our Mission: Armstrong is teaching-centered and student-focused, providing diverse learning experiences and professional programs grounded in the liberal arts. Fall 2012 Enrollment Undergraduate 6731 Graduate 708 Faculty & Staff Full-Time Faculty 258 Administration / Staff 332 Student to Faculty Ratio 19:1 Fall 2012 Student Information Male 34% Female 66% 87.2% are from Georgia 10.8% are from out of state 2% are from 68 other countries Asian/Pacific Islander 3.6% African American 23.3% Hispanic 6% Multi-Racial 3.5% Native American.03% White/Caucasian 61.4% Colleges College of Education College of Health Professions College of Liberal Arts College of Science & Technology Graduate Studies John Kraft AVP Academic Affairs Psychology Laura Barrett Dean, Liberal Arts Literature Lea Padgett Laboratory Supervisor Chemistry Teresa Winterhalter Dir., Faculty Development Literature Delana Gajdosik-Nivens AD Science & Technology Chemistry Alison Hatch Dir., Gender/Women’s Studies Sociology Project Goals Faculty and administrators developed core area student learning outcomes and assessment measures that include: pre and post-test results, common questions for concepts and analytic practices that span discipline-specific courses, and scoring rubrics that reflect department and program-wide deliberations about what evidence most clearly reflects a student’s mastery of a desired learning outcome. After two years of assessment and subsequent reflection we believe that our learning outcomes and assessment measures may be impoverished. We may have chosen SLOs and assessment measures that are easy to measure, but at the cost of not being meaningful. Our project goals include: Improving our student learning outcomes for each core area. Developing or using more meaningful assessment of SLOs. Building a positive, self-sustaining culture of assessment. Project Obstacles Goal A1 (Communications) Students will produce organized communication that develops analytical arguments and meets conventional standards of composition. Goal A2 (Quantitative) Students will demonstrate the ability to use mathematical information and concepts in verbal, numeric, graphical, or symbolic forms to solve problems. Goal B (Ethics, Values, Global Perspectives) Students will critically evaluate the relationship between ethical theories and culture, and students will analyze global multicultural issues among diverse realms of societies. Goal C (Humanities/Fine Arts) Students will critically analyze the meanings of texts or works of art or music. Goal D (Natural Sciences) Students will demonstrate a collegiate-level understanding of the method by which scientific study is conducted, and, students will accurately evaluate data in scientific reasoning problems. Goal E (Social Sciences) Students will analyze the complexity of human behavior, considering how historical, economic, political, or social relationships develop, persist, or change. Goal I (US Perspectives) Students will evaluate the Constitutional principles and related historical, political, social, and institutional developments and governmental processes fundamental to American democracy. Goal II (Global Perspectives) Students will analyze global multicultural issues among diverse realms of societies. Goal III (Critical Thinking) Students will effectively analyze and synthesize arguments in support of conclusions. Student Learning Outcomes 2013 AAC&U Institute on General Education and Assessment, Burlington, Vermont Our current general education student learning outcomes and assessment procedures meet requirements for accreditation, but the process of achieving a minimally satisfactory plan revealed barriers that keep general education assessment from being a mechanism of transformation. 1.The belief that assessment is merely an accreditation requirement. 2.Faculty have little time for assessment within courses. 3.Faculty are committed to their course and program SLOs, but not necessarily to core area SLOs. 4.Lack of financial commitment to using proprietary instruments. Overall, there isn’t a culture of assessment of general education SLOs that is analogous to our high standards of course and program assessment. Additional Thoughts We are at the beginning of the reform process. In AY 2010-11, we developed our first general education SLOs. In AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 we collected assessment data based on those SLOs. Now that we have some momentum, we would like to help our colleagues achieve more. We may offer the institute an example of what it looks like when a public university is meeting the minimum requirements of system and accreditation requirements, but aspires to do more. We can provide a lessons-learned view point.