General Education Outcomes: Reviewing, Revising, and Implementing Assessment

1. General Education Outcomes: Reviewing, Revising, and Implementing Assessment Mark Lanting—Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences

2. Fundamental questions: • Why do our institutions have general education outcomes? • What processes were used to generate your institutions general education outcomes? • How does your institution assess learners’ attainment of your institutions general education outcomes?

3. Why are the answers important? • Lack of knowledge leads to lackluster behaviors • Not knowing the why behind the what leads to misunderstandings • Not using common learning standards for all students in all programs leads to inequitable, unstable practices • The Higher Learning Commission expects that we can answer everything we just discussed re. gen. ed. objectives.

4. HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation • Core Component 3A: The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education • Learning goals are consistent • Core Component 3A: The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education

5. HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation • Core Component 3B: The institution exercises/assesses inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning skills • Core Component 3B: Gen Ed program is appropriate to the mission, educational offerings and degrees of the institutions

6. Institutional Reflection • In 2010, KCC was prompted to reflect on our Gen ed outcomes • Were they meaningful? • Meaning, were they truly gauged to assess gen ed program? • Were they comprehensive and broad? • Were they easily assessable? • HLC Core Component 4B: The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning.

7. What we had: The dense 7

8. Long story short. . .Findings: • Our gen ed outcomes were inadequate • Assessment hampered by vague, immeasurable outcomes • We realized we could do better • Both at identifying what our gen ed program was • And at designing useful, meaningful assessment instruments and practices. • We needed a systematic approach to assessing more cogently constructed outcomes

9. Academic Quality Institute • KCC received consultation from AQI in 2010-2011 • Joined by two other community colleges • Met monthly on each other’s campuses to review and revise gen ed outcomes • Also designed measurement tools • Rubrics and indicators

10. Involved the review/revision process? • The VP (KCC’s CAO) • MSE, HSS, Bus. Tech. Associate Deans • faculty representatives • Math Science Engineering • Humanities Social Sciences • Health Careers • Business/Technology • Director of Horticulture/Agriculture • Office of Institutional Research

11. Extensive months of rewriting process • Comparing with other institutions • Brainstorming—Poster board sessions • Wrestling with words • Sometimes wrestling with each other!! • Stripped away vague outcomes • Crafted a simpler, assessable set • In the end, we found fewer but more direct/implicit outcomesto be more effective

12. Out with the old, in with the simpler: • Communication: Students will communicate with precision, clarity, fluency, accuracy, and coherence through their reading, writing, and verbal communications. • Quantitative Reasoning: Students will reason and solve quantitative problems from a wide array of contexts. • Ethical Reasoning: Students will apply skills in ethical reasoning and come to understand the ways ethical issues affect individual behaviors, individual lifestyles, and public life. • Inquiry and Analysis: Students will examine complex topics and apply systematic processes resulting in formed conclusions.

13. College-Wide Review process • Started with faculty-led assessment committee • Faculty were given opportunity to assess • All levels of administration reviewed • Advisory councils informed and invited to provide input. • AQIP systems portfolio question 1P1: How do you determine which common or shared objectives for learning and development you should hold for all students pursuing degrees at a particular level? Whom do you involve in setting these objectives?

14. But the title of this presentation is. . . • General Education Outcomes: Reviewing, Revising, and Implementing Assessment • So how do you do that? • Valid instruments needed • Management software needed to make data useful

15. To systematize our assessment practices • To segment student data according to ethnicity, gender, age, and academic proficiency • To provide an accessible archive • To help develop cogent learning-improvement plans based on specific data

16. Reading Comprehension Objective

17. Verbal Communication Objective

18. Written Communication Objective

19. Ethical Reasoning Objective

20. Inquiring & Analysis Objective

21. Quantitative Reasoning Objective

22. Next step—Pilot the process • Pilot Participants: • Professor of Education • Professor of English • Professor of Nursing • Professor of Speech • Professor of Developmental Writing • Professor of Radiography

23. Yes! A new Acronym! • Each participant sought occasions for assessment (OFAs) in Communication • Writing • Reading • Verbal Gen ed pilot ran in 5 courses, 9 sections, with 174 students total

24. Some cool reading results!!

25. Some awesome writing results!

26. Some Very fine verbal results

27. On to a systematized process

28. Contact: • Mark Lanting mlanting@kcc.edu • 815-802-8709