GE Program Assessment, AY 05-06

1. GE Program Assessment, AY 05-06 • Goal – Provide valid, reliable information on student performance in foundational domains of GE that can: • guide GE review • suggest curricular changes to enhance student learning • AY 05-06: Assessment of 3 broad domains – writing, quantitative reasoning, oral communication

2. GE Program Assessment, AY 05-06 • Need to move beyond usual course-level assessment • GE Program Assessment is called for in AAO MOU that administers GE on campus • How are our students doing in the broad skill/knowledge domains covered in GE? • Can’t be answered by course-level assessment

3. Solving the GE Assessment puzzle … • Manageable, Meaningful, Sustainable • Manageable: don’t want to overburden already hard working faculty • Meaningful: provide valid, reliable information of relevance to questions of academic quality • Sustainable: KISS rule … assessment must be an ongoing process

4. Methodology • Mission, Goals, Student Learning Outcomes model … adapting assessment methods used for baccalaureate programs to GE • Mission, goals provided by EM 99-05 • Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for GE derived, by faculty, from GE goals • Student performance on SLOs observed/ measured in GE courses • Assessment results analyzed, guide curricular change and reform

5. Methodology (cont’d) • Direct Assessment: Measure/observe actual student performance on the skills/knowledge we value (SLOs) • Embedded Assessment: Measure/ observe student performance on existing tasks • Close the Loop: Results guide changes aimed at improving student learning

6. Structure • GE on this campus governed by a series of “rules” • Title 5, EO 595, EM 99-05, AAO-MOU • http://www.csuchico.edu/prs/EMs/EM99/em99_05.htm • http://www.csuchico.edu/vpaa/manual/MOU.pdf • http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-595.pdf • GEAC advises Provost on GE, including assessment • AURA responsible for assisting faculty with baccalaureate program and GE assessment • Need to build collaborative structure

7. Provost Coordinating Committee: AURA Chair, GEAC Chair, Dean Undergraduate Studies GEAC General Education Advisory Committee AURA All University Responsibility for Assessment Committee Task Forces: 1 (Oral Communication), 2 (Writing), 3 (Quantitative reasoning). Each Task Force has an AURA member, GEAC member, and an additional faculty member.

8. Process • Goal: GE Program Assessment must be Manageable, Meaningful, Sustainable • Participatory … faculty input • How to build-in faculty input? • Produce valid, reliable, timely results • Consequential … results should guide GE reform

9. Process (cont’d) • Task Forces are working groups that lead effort • Task Forces consult with additional faculty throughout process • Task Forces coordinate efforts, do much of the actual work involved • Task Forces report results to Provost and campus community

10. Task Force 1: Oral Communication Ruth Guzley, AURA, CMST, Chair Mitch Johns, GEAC, AGRIC Susan Avanzino, CMST Additional faculty with expertise, interest Coordinating Committee: 1. Fernlund (AURA), 2. Loker (Dean UED) 3. Alger (GEAC) • Task Force 2: Writing • Chris Fosen, GEAC, ENGL, Chair • Sarah Blackstone, AURA, HFA • Judith Rodby, ENGL • Additional faculty with expertise, interest • Task Force 3: Quantitative Reasoning Margaret Owens, AURA, NS, Chair Russ Mills, GEAC, CIVL Jack Ladwig, MATH Additional faculty with expertise, interest

11. Process (cont’d) • Using EM 99-05, Task Forces define SLOs, in consultation with faculty • Using SLOs, Task Forces work with faculty to analyze curriculum, determine “sites for assessment” • Task Forces work with faculty to select assignments for “embedded assessment”

12. Process (cont’d) • Task Forces, in collaboration with faculty, devise rubrics for assessing student work • Student work collected (Spring 06) using STEPS process where possible • http://www.cob.csuchico.edu/steps/ • Task Forces and faculty work to achieve “inter-rater reliability” in assessing student work

13. Process (cont’d) • Task Forces and faculty assess student work using rubrics and standards agreed upon for this purpose • Assessment results analyzed with an eye to spotting areas for improvement in student performance, curriculum • Results and recommendations written up and conveyed to Provost, campus

14. 1. Task Forces Formed 9/05 2. Task Forces consult with faculty on GE SLOs 10/05 3. Task Forces & faculty analyze curriculum for “assessment sites” 10-11/05 4. Task Forces & faculty select assignments, develop rubrics, 11/05 6. Assessment of student work by Task Forces & faculty April-May 06 5. Student work collected from appropriate courses Sp 06 7. Assessment results analyzed and written up Summer 06 8. Results reported to Provost, campus August 06

15. Outcomes • Assessment results form basis for change/reform of GE • Further GE Program Assessment carried out in AY 06-07 … critical thinking and breadth areas • Assess assessment: How’d we do? • GE reforms designed and implemented in AY 07-08?

16. Conclusion • “Jazz” assessment: new process, will require creativity, improvisation • Participatory assessment … faculty input • “Learning” organization … we need to learn about GE • Culture of evidence … change in GE should be based on evidence • Focus on student learning … #1 priority • Transparency and accountability … no hidden agendas