Faculty development day General education assessment

1. Faculty development dayGeneral education assessment Donna Sundre, EdD Executive Director, Center for Assessment and Research Studies (CARS) Professor of Graduate Psychology James Madison University Kara Siegert, PhD Director University Analysis, Reporting, & Assessment Salisbury University January 21, 2010

2. Purpose To encourage a discussion of common assessment misconceptions and description of the assessment process. The ultimate goals for the day are to: • provide assessment resources and best practices, • describe the assessment process, • discuss the role SU faculty will play in developing the assessment process at the institution, and • collect feedback from faculty on assessment strategies that they recommend for collecting data on student achievement of General Education outcomes

3. ITINERARY 9:00-9:15- Introductions & Itinerary 9:15-10:00- Assessment Misconceptions 10:00-10:45-Assessment Process & Assessment at SU 10:45-11:30-Data Collection Methods 11:30-12:00-Developing a Culture of Assessment 12:00-12:30-Working Lunch-Wicomico Room 12:30-1:00- Provost Allen 1:00-1:30- Questions & Introduction to Afternoon Activity 1:30-3:00- Roundtables 3:00-4:00- Faculty Feedback

4. Crimes, Misdemeanors, and Felonies that Prevent a culture of assessment

5. Crime, Consequence, and Rehabilitation • Crime: Practice (or non-practice) that results in the breakdown of the assessment process • Consequence: How the crime affects your assessment program • Rehabilitation: How to fix the offending behavior • Of course there are different levels of offenses; we’ve divided our examples into “misdemeanors” and “felonies”

6. Crime: Focus only on Weaknesses Level: Misdemeanor I Consequence: Faculty and administrators complain that assessment focuses on faults Rehabilitation: Look specifically for strengths, report and publicize them; provide balanced feedback

7. Crime: Use of Unnecessary Jargon • Level: Misdemeanor I • Consequence: Rolling Eyes (i.e., a lack of interest and, worse, a lack of understanding of results) • Rehabilitation: Know your audience. Present at their level. Complex analyses are often useful and appropriate, but offer these in an appendix, technical report, or talk to someone after the meeting.

8. Crime: GE and the assessment of GE goals and outcomes are the responsibility of the faculty that teach GE only Level: Misdemeanor I Consequence: Faculty teaching in non-General Education courses will disengage with General Education conversations Rehabilitation: GE includes the most fundamental skills and is therefore taught across all courses, majors, and faculty. Faculty from all disciplines should play a role in developing GE assessments.

9. Crime: Using Course Grades as Evidence of Student Learning Level: Misdemeanor II Consequence: Specific conclusions about student learning and achievement of student learning outcomes cannot be determined making it difficult to “close the loop” Rehabilitation: Develop assessment methods and evaluation strategies that are directly aligned with learning outcomes

10. Crime : Forgetting that All Research has Limitations Level: Misdemeanor II Consequence: Faculty will question whether results are indicative of students’ true ability because • Student aren’t motivated • Sample was too small • Test/Instrument isn’t perfect • We need more analyses, data, etc Rehabilitation: Use the assessment process and results to improve and inform the process. There will always be factors outside of our control. The key is appropriate interpretation of results; faculty should guide this.

11. Crime: Only Recommending Multiple-Choice Tests for Assessment Level: Misdemeanor III Consequence: Skeptical faculty and administrators. They are more likely to question the validity of the data. Rehabilitation: Use the Student Learning Goals and outcomes to determine the most appropriate method of data collection.

12. Crime: Surprise Stakeholders with Poor Results Level: Misdemeanor III Consequence: Defensive faculty and administrators. They are more likely to try to undermine assessment efforts. Rehabilitation: Share poor results informally with stakeholders first. Have them brainstorm why results turned out so. Include them in presentations.

13. Crime: Assessment Reports Collect Dust Level: Felony Consequence: Faculty will consider assessment a bureaucratic exercise invented by administrators and government for the sole purpose of torturing them. Rehabilitation: Make sure time and resources are allotted for faculty to consider and use assessment results.

14. Crime: Assessment Data Reported at the Individual Faculty Level Level: Felony (Capital Offense) Consequence: ‘Audit’ mode confirmed; faculty assume results are being use to assess them, not programs. Expect mass hysteria and mutiny. Rehabilitation: There may be none. Administration will need to earn respect. Allow faculty to interpret findings and suggest improvements.

15. Things to Consider • You already do assessment! • Systematic basis for making inferences about student development and growth • Think about why you go to work everyday—your purpose • Do you see your students as your partners in learning? • What feedback from your partners would be most beneficial for program improvement?

16. Final Questions What assessment crimes have you seen committed here or at other institutions? What assessment crimes are you most concerned might take place at SU? How can we best assure that these misdemeanors and felonies are not committed at SU? Other Questions, Comments, or Concerns?

17. Assessment Process

18. Assoc. of American Colleges & Universities “Almost all of the institutions surveyed (89 percent) are in some stage of either assessing or modifying their general education program.  Assessment of cumulative learning outcomes in general education is, in fact, now becoming the norm.” “Fifty-two percent of institutions are currently assessing cumulative learning outcomes in general education beyond the level of individual course grades, with another 42 percent reporting that they are planning for assessment of cumulative general education learning outcomes.” AAC&U, 2009, Survey of 433 colleges and universities

19. Stages of the Assessment Process • 1. Establishing Goals, Objectives, and/or Outcomes • 2. Selecting or Designing Methods • 3. Collecting Credible Information • 4. Analyzing and Maintaining Information • 5. Using Information for Teaching and Learning Improvement *Regardless of the level of assessment required, whether it be a single learning objective, a course, a curriculum, or an entire program, the process is the same.

20. Stages of the Assessment Process Establishing Objectives/ Outcomes Using Information Selecting/ Designing Instruments Continuous Cycle Analyzing/ Maintaining Information Collecting Information

21. Student Learning Goals SKILLS 1. Critical Thinking 2.Command of Language 2a. Reading 2b. Writing 2c. Speaking 2d. Listening 3. Quantitative Literacy 4. Information Literacy 4a. Library Use 4b. Computer Technology Use 5. Interpersonal Communication KNOWLEDGE 1. Breadth of Knowledge 1a. Arts 1b. Literature 1c. Civilization 1d. Global Issues 1e. 2nd Culture or Language 1f. Mathematics 1g. Social and Behavioral Sciences 1h. Biological and Physical Sciences 2. Interdependence among Disciplines DISPOSITIONS 1. Social Responsibility 2. Humane Values 3. Intellectual Curiosity 4. Aesthetic Values 5. Wellness

22. What are Student Learning Outcomes? • OUTCOMES • Specific knowledge, skills, or attitudes that students are expected to achieve through their college experience • Describe observable behavior indicative of learning or development • Student-centered! • Aligned with the GE goals and the program’s mission SpecificMeasurableAttainableReasonable Timely

23. Curriculum Mapping Example

24. Typically use some combination Selecting/Designing Instruments • Direct measures are best • Assess the extent to which students have mastered outcomes via: • Multiple-Choice Tests • Oral Presentations • On-Demand Essays • Course Embedded Essays • Portfolios

25. Locating Instruments • Student Learning Goals and Outcomes/Objectives create the engine that drives assessment • Search for commercial instruments ($$) • ETS, Pearson, ACT, College Base, CLA • Search for non-commercial instruments • Check alignment with learning outcomes • Check measurement properties-reliability and validity

26. Selecting or Designing Instruments • Items and asks Must Match Objectives • Create your own blueprint • What is the Purpose of Assessment? • JMU Example of QR and SR • Start off trying to describe level of student learning • Move toward describing growth • Later establish faculty expectations for GE completers • What Type of Instruments? • Validating Inferences

28. Collecting Information • Start with an Important Question- • This will guide your data collection • Cross sectional design- to begin • Pre- and post-test- later • Very powerful; faculty love this design • Sampling vs. census data collection • Methodology will dictate—costs, resources • Course embedded • Where are the ‘natural homes’ for assessment?

29. Analyzing/Maintaining Information • Reliability has to come first • Validation of inferences is a natural partner for any assessment question: • Do course grades correlate with performances? • Can we show evidence of course impact? • Do students that have completed GE requirements perform better than entering students? • Are there differences by SU, AP or transfer credits? • Do students achieve faculty expectations? • Is there value-added?

30. Creating and Using Information • You need an infrastructure for • Sound data collection • Interpreting and creating good reports • Surprising results • Identifying strengths and weaknesses • Sharing results and improving processes • How can good data be used? • Improving assessment process and instruments • Improving teaching & learning • Academic program review • Strategic planning & budgeting

31. Fulton School Example: History • Used learning goals to develop a rubric that is used to evaluate research papers • Rubric evaluates research, analytical and communication abilities, in general, and as they relate to the study of history in particular. • Also assisted in providing essays for GE assessment with the English department

32. Perdue School Example • Developed six to seven learning goals for both its undergraduate and graduate programs. • Each goal has one or more measurable objectives. • As of Fall 2009, methods have been developed for assessing each learning goal. • Team approach-each learning outcome assessed by faculty members representing each discipline. • Based on data collection, the Perdue School has: • made changes to the Common Body of Knowledge Exam • expanded professional development opportunities to include a 1 credit junior year course (BUAD 300) and a non-credit senior year assessment (BUAD 400) to reinforce our learning goals.

33. Henson School Example • Recent Assessment and Evaluation Activities with the Henson School Science General Education Requirements • 2-IVA-Labs Courses • 1-IVA or IVB Course (Non-lab) or IVC (Math or COSC) • Routine assessment for accredited programs (Nursing, Respiratory Care, and Medical Lab Sciences)

34. Seidel School Example • Specialty Program Area Annual Report • What does data show? • What actions were taken based on this data? • How will assessment system change? • These reports have led to changes in • Curriculum-classroom management has been added to SCED programs • Evaluation instruments-modified to better align with program standards

35. Other assessment examples from your programs that you would like to share? Are any of you stuck at a particular phase in the assessment process?

36. Salisbury university Assessment progress

37. SU’s Assessment Progress • University Academic Assessment Committee • Established in 2002 • Establishment of the Student Learning Goals • 2000, General Education Task Force • 2009-Present, Alignment with General Education Courses • Development of Student Learning Outcomes • June 2009-Present • General Education Assessment • Academic Profile/MAPP/Proficiency Profile-2005 • Critical thinking, written communication, information literacy • ALEKS • Academic Program Review • Pilot revisions AY 2009-10

38. Academic Profile/MAPP/Proficiency Profile 2005 *Values in parentheses represent average % of test-takers from other Master’s Level I & II institutions.

39. Self Study Assessment Results-2006

40. APR Proposed Changes: 2009-10 • Removal of General Education analysis • Removal of peer comparison • Data pre-populated in tables • Clarification & Training • Electronic creation and submission • Rubric-based feedback provided to programs • Reviewing assessment progress periodically • October review • 3-year Assessment Plan & Summary Preview • Fulton School curriculum reform APR guidelines

41. Academic Program Review PART I- Assessment Plan and Summary • Program Description • Student Learning Goals, Outcomes, and/or Objectives • Assessment Method(s) • Data Results and Use • Assessment Action Plan PART II- Program Review and Action Plan • Internal Review and Qualitative Analysis • Summary • Program Curriculum and Advising • Resources • External Review Summary • Recommendations Action Plan

42. Methods of data collection

43. Not Just Any Data Will Do… • If we want faculty to pay attention to the results, we need credible evidence • To obtain credible evidence: • We need a representative sample or a census • We need good instrumentation • The tasks demanded must represent the content domain • Reliability and validity • We need students who are motivated to perform

44. Prerequisites for Quality Assessment • We must have three important components • Excellence in sampling of students • Either large, representative student samples or a census • Sound assessment instrumentation • Psychometrically sound assessment methods that map to the domain • Instruments and methods that faculty find meaningful • Motivated students to participate in assessment activities • Can we tell if students are motivated? • Can we influence examinee motivation?

45. Data Collection Methods • Course-Embedded • Grand Valley State University • Portfolios • College of William and Mary • George Mason University • Assessment Days • St. Mary’s University • Christopher Newport University • James Madison University • Assessment Season • Truman State University

46. Course-Embedded • Courses serve as data collection venue • Focused assignments are integral to courses; evaluated as part of course grade using common scoring procedure

47. Portfolios • Student developed vs. Instructor compiled • Contain samples that demonstrate attainment of specific GE goals and outcomes • Rubric-based evaluation of samples

48. Assessment Days • Two institution-wide Assessment Days • Fall (August): Incoming freshmen tested at orientation • Spring (February): Students with 45-70 credits ; typically the sophomore year • Classes are cancelled on this day • All students are required to participate, else course registration is blocked • Students are randomly assigned to take a particular series of instruments • JMU just completed its 23rd Spring Assessment Day • Spring Day is used by many majors to collect data on graduating seniors

49. Assessment Season • 2-4 week testing window where instruments are offered for completion • Students assigned to certain tests based on a sampling approach

50. Developing a culture of assessment