Quality in Undergraduate Education QUE

1. Quality in Undergraduate Education QUE Susan Albertine The College of New Jersey Gloria John Baltimore Ron Henry Georgia State University

2. Roles • Communication specialist – Gloria John • Project adviser – Susan Albertine • Standards process experts – Education Trust • Ruth Mitchell • Funders • Pew Charitable Trusts – Michelle Seidl • ExxonMobil Foundation – Ed Ahnert • Project evaluators - PSA

3. Roles • Critical friends – disciplinary consultants • Spencer Benson – biology – U.Maryland • Jay Labov – biology – NRC • Gordon Uno – biology – U. Oklahoma - AIBS • Lendol Calder – history – Augustana College • Mills Kelly – history – George Mason • Jim Roth – history - Alverno • Paul Bodmer – English – NCTE • Susan Ganter – mathematics - Clemson • Bernie Madison – mathematics – MAA • Jerry Sarquis – chemistry – Miami Univ. Ohio - ACS

4. QUE Milestones • Stage 1: Learning outcomes: What should students know, understand, and be able to do? • Learning outcomes for level 14 • Learning outcomes for level 16 • Disciplinary contributions to General Education learning outcomes

5. QUE Milestones • Stage 2: Assessment: What is acceptable evidence that students have attained desirable understandings and proficiencies? • Aligning assignment with learning outcome • Developing scoring guides or rubrics • Constructing performance standards for a learning outcome • Scoring student work

6. QUE Milestones • Stage 3: Practical ideas for learning experiences and instruction • Coping with large numbers of students • Value of rubrics • Using electronic portfolios

7. QUE Milestones • Stage 4: Moving to program level • Learning outcomes for sequences of courses • Gap analysis or Super-matrix • Impact of QUE work on department’s curriculum

8. QUE Milestones • Stage 5: Dissemination of best practices • Present at disciplinary association meetings • Disciplinary associations adopt learning outcomes • Present at national meetings such as AAHE and AAC&U • Publish monograph of case studies • Provide clearinghouse for rubrics, database for examples of exemplar work at various levels

9. Framework for Cognitive Outcomes Inheritance x Accumulated Experience Abstract, Process- Oriented Broad Abilities Verbal Reasoning; Quantitative Reasoning; Spatial Reasoning Reasoning; Comprehending; Problem Solving; Decision Making In and across broad Disciplines Knowledge Declarative Procedural Schematic Strategic Acquired in a Discipline Direct Experience Concrete, Content- Oriented

10. Why we are here - Objectives • Assessment – the heart of the matter – Standards in practice – Scoring guide development • To develop teaching strategies for assisting students in achieving standards • Better overlap of the delivered curriculum and the experienced curriculum

11. Agenda Cluster Groups: Friday after dinner Plenary Panel: Saturday 8:30-10:15 am Disciplinary Group meetings: Saturday 10:30-noon • What did you like best about the panel? • What was relevant to your discipline? Disciplinary Group meetings: Saturday1:00-3:00 pm; Sunday 9:00-10:30 am Cross-disciplinary meeting: Saturday 3:15-4:30 pm Focus Groups and Cluster Coordinators: Saturday 4:30-5:30 pm Wrap up: Sunday 10:30-11:30 am

12. Agenda Panel Plenary: Saturday 8:30-10:15 am • Learning Across the Disciplines • Susan Albertine (moderator) • Lendol Calder • Susan Ganter • James Roth • Gordon Uno

13. Framing Questions • What does my discipline need from your discipline? • What strategies does your discipline use for cross-disciplinary competencies? • Empathy; Conceptual understanding; • Sensitivity to multiple perspectives; • Problem solving; Sourcing; Data analysis; • Recognizing limits of knowledge

14. QUE Objectives • Development and use of standards for lower division to facilitate the transition to upper division within 4-year institutions and for transfer from 2-year to 4-year institutions • Development and use of standards for graduation from college • Levels 14 and 16 represent performance-bound learning [not the time it takes to get there] • Learner-centered learning, not time-specific or place-specific learning

15. QUE Deliverables • Department and campus draft learning outcomes, performance descriptions, collections of student work, and assessments of student learning

16. Aligned course ------ --- ---- ---- ----- ----

17. Aligned Curriculum Program Courses E B I F A C LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 LO5 G J D H

18. Value of involvement in QUE • Conversations of faculty across institutions • => more trust engendered between partners • => learning from experiences of other institutions • Value of Learning Community • => for both faculty and students • More emphasis on student reflection • => e-portfolio is a vehicle

19. Best Practices • Make expectations for students explicit • Give students opportunity to practice skills by engaging content being presented • Faculty collaboration leading to reinforcement of student development through learning outcomes across courses rather than just in bookend courses

20. Best Practices • Make expectations for faculty explicit • Give faculty opportunity to practice skills by engaging content being presented • Faculty collaboration leading to reinforcement of faculty development of learning outcomes across courses rather than just in bookend courses

21. Some final points about developing assessment • Keeping looping back to actual student work • It’s less about establishing “Measures” than about building “Communities of Judgement” • It doesn’t stand still • Two most important adjectives are • draft and voluntary

22. Next meetings • Meeting in September 19-21, 2003 in New Orleans • Focus on design and student work • Potential speaker – Grant Wiggins • National meeting in spring 2004

23. Quality in Undergraduate Education QUE Susan Albertine The College of New Jersey Gloria John Baltimore Ron Henry Georgia State University