Valerie Paton, Ph.D. Craig Morton, M.Ed. Sandra Marquez- Hall, Ph.D.

1. Co-curricular evidence of student learning outcomes for general education and the QEP Valerie Paton, Ph.D. Craig Morton, M.Ed. Sandra Marquez- Hall, Ph.D.

2. Academic Affairs Perspectives • Student learning is encouraged and supported through the cultivation of human scale settings and an ethos of learning that pervades all aspects of the institution (Kuh et al. 1994). Learning environments with these characteristics do not happen by accident. They are intentionally designed (Kuh et al. 2005b; Schroeder and Hurst, 1996). • In Kuh, G. (2006). What matters to college success: A review of the literature.

3. Academic Affairs Perspectives • “A perspective on Student Affairs” (NASPA, 1987, p. 9), the first “assumption and belief” of student affairs professionals is: “The academic mission of the institution is preeminent.” As a functional unit, most student affairs structures have at the core of their mission the fostering of student learning through extension of student learning activities into co-curricular environments.

4. Academic Affairs Perspectives • Response to C.S.3.5.1. included co-curricular evidence of student learning. • Interested in intentional co-curricular programs, facilities (environments) or services that extend classroom learning. • Example: Application of critical thinking, problem solving, math, writing, speaking, multicultural skills in leadership, work study, internship, community service activities.

5. Academic Affairs Perspectives • Question: If academic and student affairs aligned PFS to address specific general education or QEP objectives, could we stimulate cognitive and affective learning further by supplementing curricular experiences with co-curricular experiences?

6. Co-curricular evidence of student learning outcomes for general education and the QEP Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) State-Driven Learning Outcomes/Core Curriculum Assessment and Planning for Student Affairs divisional assessment of self-reported contribution Implications Opportunities for future research

7. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Instructions • Part I DSA Contributions to TTU General Education Requirements • In the first large box write the department name • Under the department name there are a number of rows. List all programs that directly apply to the general education requirements • Place a check mark in the box indicating appropriate criteria the PFS meets (PFS - program, facility or service) • Next to the PFS name check the box indicating if there is an assessment/survey for the item • Part II Departmental Assessment and Survey Questionnaire • (Provide information about selected PFS assessment(s) used by your department. An example is provided on the worksheet.) • Department name • Name of PFS and assessment • Supply a brief response under boxes (A-D)

8. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Instructions • Part III DSA Contribution to TTU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) “Campus conversation on ethics” • In the first large box write the department name • Under the department name there are a number of rows. List all programs that directly apply to the QEP • Place a check mark in the box indicating appropriate criteria the PFS meets • Next to the PFS name check the box to indicate if there is an assessment for the item • Part IV Departmental Assessment and Survey Questionnaire • (Provide information about selected PFS assessment(s) used by your department. An example is provided.) • Department name • Name of PFS and assessment • Supply a brief description under boxes (A-D)

9. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 1 1 2 3 6 4 5

10. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 1 • Indicates which part of the of questionnaire • 2. Where the department name is placed • The designated general education criteria parts • Communication • Mathematics • Natural Sciences • Humanities and Visual and Performing Arts • Social and Behavioral Sciences • Multicultural • Technological and Applied Sciences • Where each department lists programs, facilities, and services (PFS) that they feel contribute to the learning outcomes of “3” • 5. Where departments indicate which criteria PFS meets • 6. Where departments are instructed to indicate if the PFS is formally assessed

11. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 2 1 2 3 4

12. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 2 • Indicates which part of the of questionnaire • 2. Where the department name is placed • Questions to determine how PFS is assessed • If it is a survey or some other form of assessment • How often the survey is implemented • If the survey is internally or externally implemented • How the results are used • Where each department lists programs from Part 1 that are identified as assessed programs and subsequent questions

13. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 3 1 2 3 6 4 5

14. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 3 • Indicates which part of the of questionnaire • 2. Where the department name is placed • The designated QEP criteria parts • An Ethical Institution • Ethics in the curriculum • Academic Integrity • Diversity and Equity • Where each department lists programs, facilities, and services (PFS) that they feel contribute to the learning outcomes of “3” • 5. Where departments indicate which criteria PFS meets • 6. Where departments are instructed to indicate if the PFS is formally assessed

15. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 4 1 2 3 4

16. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 4 • Indicates which part of the of questionnaire • 2. Where the department name is placed • Questions to determine how PFS is assessed • If it is a survey or some other form of assessment • How often the survey is implemented • If the survey is internally or externally implemented • How the results are used • Where each department lists programs from Part 1 that are identified as assessed programs and subsequent questions

17. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 1 Results

18. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) Part 2 Results

19. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) General Education Summary This chart and graph indicate only those PFSs that met minimal requirements established by our office for potential to contribution of general education requirements.

20. Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping) General Education Summary Based on the same minimal standards, this chart and this graph demonstrate which general education objectives are most applicable to student affairs within existing programming.

21. Implications of Environmental Scan (Curriculum Map) • This relatively simple assessment could generate further research • We will discuss this further at the end of the presentation • Meta-analysis that identifies areas of greatest contribution • There are limitations with this due to self-reporting • Gap analysis that identifies areas that possibly should have greater contribution • Not every criteria should be a significant area of contribution for student affairs • An effective way to determine the level of assessment within the division • It was easily recognized that for many within the division, there was little understanding between program assessment and assessment of student learning

22. Implications of Environmental Scan (Curriculum Map) • The results were used as a tool to discuss focusing departmental activity • Self-report is typically a limitation, but here it was beneficial for focusing the strategic planning of the division • It has been an effective way to demonstrate the activity of the division and its alignment with the academic mission • In other words, it was beneficial in and of itself • Indirect evidence of student learning was used from the division in the re- accreditation process • Ultimately, nationally normed, benchmarked student life research provided the best contribution

23. Co-curricular evidence of student learning outcomes for general education and the QEP Opportunities for future research

24. Opportunities for future research • Considerations • ~ Student affairs and the academic mission • ~ Student affairs and indirect assessment • ~ Collaborations vs. regular activities • Obstacles • ~ Little research on existing models • ~ Curriculum • ~ Culture of assessment

25. Opportunities for future research • Using the data from this exploratory assessment, student affairs has been able to develop a collaboration with academic areas to meet reaffirmation needs • ~ Texas Tech Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) deals with Ethics (ethics in the curriculum and academic integrity) • ~ The assessment discussed here identifies Communication and Behavioral Sciences as Student Affairs greatest potential contribution to general education • ~ By implementing the Defining Issues Test (DIT) across the institution student affairs is not only able to help contribute to the QEP, but is able to identify a potential pretest/ posttest that provides direct learning assessment for general education on the items of Communication and Behavioral Sciences. • The DIT is being administered in ethics courses, service learning environments, student affairs co-curriculum environments determined to have an established curricular element (student employment), and to a random sample. • Other options have also been discussed such as the Critical Thinking Inventory.

26. Opportunities for future research • Four Environment groups to include: • Control Group (n = 100)- Random sample from IRIM • Curricular- (Philosophy 2320 course [n= 100]) • Service Learning courses in Spring • Co-curricular (n = 100) • Selected co-curricular environments (four departments within student affairs with high student employment which requires various levels of training and responsibility)

27. Valerie Paton, Ph.D. Vice Provost, Planning and Assessment Director, TTU Strategic Planning Craig Morton, M.Ed. Unit Manager, Assessment and Planning for Student Affairs Sandra Marquez-Hall, Ph.D. ???