1 / 19

“ Developing 136 Assessments Programs in One Year: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”

“ Developing 136 Assessments Programs in One Year: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” Grand Valley State University, Michigan International Assessment & Retention Conference 2007 St. Louis, MO. Grand Valley State University. Public Institution West Michigan

tyra
Download Presentation

“ Developing 136 Assessments Programs in One Year: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “Developing 136 Assessments Programs in One Year: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” Grand Valley State University, Michigan International Assessment & Retention Conference 2007 St. Louis, MO

  2. Grand Valley State University • Public Institution • West Michigan • Carnegie classification, Masters 1 • 24,000 students • Enormous growth – doubled enrollment in 12 years • Liberal Education Mission

  3. CHALLENGES University climate Competing University initiatives Faculty buy-in Assessment doesn’t equal evaluation of faculty teaching Managerial model Other faculty responsibilities Faculty learning curve Forging relationships with faculty governance members Short timetable

  4. ACTIONS • Developed a collaborative model • Provided internal and external assessment workshop opportunities for faculty • Created assessment websites • Initiated meetings with unit heads to discuss assessment • Purchased an assessment data management system

  5. Hypothetical Case - Classics – Student Learning Goals (outcome) Minimum of 2 Goals, 2 Objectives/Goal, 2 Measures/Objective

  6. The GOOD University-wide • Collaboration • Engaging with faculty governance • Faculty created and owned College level • Initial large group meetings • Small group meetings • Curmudgeon effect • Availability • Patience

  7. The GOOD General Education • Slow, sequential, small, and sustainable • Using course-embedded measures • Cheery and upbeat rather than the stick • We lag behind the university by one year

  8. The BAD (not as good) University-Wide • University Assessment Committee (UAC) too isolated from faculty at large and other faculty governance committees • UAC members should have had more training early on • Wrong people on the bus • Funding - not organized process

  9. The BAD (not as good) cont. College level • Lack of sufficient training and responsible for many other areas apart from assessment • Large group meetings further in the process – expertise too varied to be effective • Underestimated faculty understanding in worrying about backlash • Too much information early on • Information not organized sufficiently to stave off confusion • Minimal recognition or reward in departments for faculty who work on assessment plans

  10. The BAD (not as good) cont. General Education • New role for the GE faculty governance committee – learning curve • Process of assessment not distributed early enough • Lack of communication with department chairs

  11. The UGLY • Competing University and College initiatives • Workload documents • Benchmarking • Strategic Planning • Recent reorganization of University • The Heavy Hammer of NCA • Faculty skepticism

  12. WHERE WE ARE TODAY - IMPLEMENTATION • FACULTY DEVELOPMENT • Continue to help faculty develop measures, objectives, rubrics, surveys, and course-embedded measures • How to use the assessment database • Continue to refine some assessment plans • Continue to develop a climate of assessment – as a meaningful, integral activity

  13. WHERE WE ARE TODAY - IMPLEMENTATION • DATA COLLECTION • All units collected assessment data last year • General Education starts this fall

  14. WHERE WE ARE TODAY - IMPLEMENTATION • ASSESSMENT REPORTS • 1/3 of the departments will prepare an assessment report for Oct. • 1/3 more in May.

  15. SUGGESTIONS • Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate!!! • Administrative planning is essential • Small groups for training, answering questions, providing informational models • Construct groups thoughtfully according to need • Simplify • Be available all the time • Faculty owned • Goal is improving student learning • Meet with departments individually • Obtain funding early on and distribute through transparent process

  16. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Faculty governance committees – Univ. Assessment Committee, General Education Subcommittee • Individual faculty • Departments

  17. CONTACTS Maria Cimitile cimitilm@gvsu.edu www.gvsu.edu/clas Julie Guevara guevaraj@gvsu.edu www.gvsu.edu/assessment www.gvsu.edu/uac www.gvsu.edu/ncaselfstudy Carol Griffin griffinc@gvsu.edu www.gvsu.edu/gened

More Related