FACULTY DEVELOPMENT DAYGENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

Donna Sundre, EdDExecutive Director, Center for Assessment and Research Studies

(CARS)Professor of Graduate Psychology

James Madison University

Kara Siegert, PhDDirector University Analysis, Reporting, & Assessment

Salisbury University

January 21, 2010

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

ITINERARY

9:00-9:15- Introductions & Itinerary 9:15-10:00- Assessment Misconceptions10:00-10:45-Assessment Process & Assessment at

SU10:45-11:30-Data Collection Methods11:30-12:00-Developing a Culture of Assessment12:00-12:30-Working Lunch-Wicomico Room12:30-1:00- Provost Allen 1:00-1:30- Questions & Introduction to Afternoon

Activity 1:30-3:00- Roundtables 3:00-4:00- Faculty Feedback

CRIMES, MISDEMEANORS, AND FELONIES THAT PREVENT A CULTURE OF ASSESSMENT

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”

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

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

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.

Stages of the Assessment Process

EstablishingObjectives/ Outcomes

Selecting/Designing

Instruments

CollectingInformation

Analyzing/MaintainingInformation

UsingInformation

Continuous Cycle

Student Learning Goals

SKILLS1. Critical Thinking2.Command of Language 2a. Reading 2b. Writing 2c. Speaking 2d. Listening3. Quantitative Literacy4. Information Literacy 4a. Library Use 4b. Computer Technology Use5. Interpersonal Communication

DISPOSITIONS1. Social Responsibility2. Humane Values3. Intellectual Curiosity4. Aesthetic Values5. Wellness

KNOWLEDGE1. 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 Sciences2. Interdependence among Disciplines

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 Specific Measurable Attainable Reasonable

Timely

Curriculum Mapping Example

GENERAL EDUCATION      

STUDENT LEARNING GOALS— General Education Student Learning Goals

RATING-Rate the level of importance of each outcome

OUTCOMES-Specific knowledge or skills students develop through their college experience

GEN ED AREA(S)-General Education Sub-group areas that provide courses for students to attain the identified outcome

SKILLS-

1. Critical Thinking 3 Assess strengths and weaknesses of arguments in essays written for general audiences.

IIA, IIB, IVB, IVC

  1 Compose well-reasoned and argued responses to arguments.

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IVC, V

  4 Sythesize and apply informaton and ideas from readings across disciplines

IA, IB

Selecting/Designing Instruments

Direct measures are bestAssess the extent to which students have mastered outcomes via:

Multiple-Choice Tests Oral Presentations On-Demand Essays Course Embedded Essays Portfolios

Typically use some combination

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

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

Cluster 3 - Learning ObjectivesItem(s) Assessing Objective

Scores

1. Describe the methods of inquiry that lead to mathematical truth and scientific knowledge and be able to distinguish science from pseudo-science.

2, 5, 9, 14, 18, 28, 38-41, 55-57 (13 items; 19.7% of test)

M = 9.25 (71% correct)SD = 1.77 α = .35

2. Use theories and models as unifying principles that help us understand natural phenomena and make predictions.

17, 20, 22, 27, 64-66 (7 items; 10.6% of test)

M = 4.61 (66% correct)SD = 1.46α = .32

3. Recognize the interdependence of applied research, basic research, and technology, and how they affect society.

1, 15, 16, 43-46 (7 items; 10.6% of test)

M = 4.51 (64% correct)SD = 1.61α = .49

4. Illustrate the interdependence between developments in science and social and ethical issues.

2, 19, 24-26, 29, 55-57 (9 items; 13.6% of test)

M = 6.47 (72% correct)SD = 1.29α = .23

5. Use graphical, symbolic, and numerical methods to analyze, organize, and interpret natural phenomenon.

4, 7, 8, 10-13, 21, 30-33, 51-53, 58-63 (21 items; 31.8% of test)

M = 13.74 (65% correct)SD = 3.06α = .59

6. Discriminate between association and causation, and identify the types of evidence used to establish causation

3, 34-37, 53, 60-63 (10 items; 15.2% of test)

M = 5.93 (59% correct)SD = 1.77α = .44

7. Formulate hypotheses, identify relevant variables, and design experiments to test hypotheses.

5, 6, 9-13, 18, 23, 28, 41, 42, 47-50, 54, 59, 60, 62, 63 (21 items; 31.8% of test)

M = 15.10 (72% correct)SD = 2.74α = .55

8. Evaluate the credibility, use, and misuse of scientific and mathematical information in scientific developments and public-policy issues.

2, 14, 24-26, 29, 38-40, 60-63 (13 items; 19.7% of test)

M = 7.96 (61% correct)SD = 1.77α = .29

Quantitative Reasoning

3, 4, 7, 8, 10-13, 21, 30-37, 51-53, 58-63 (26 items; 39.4% of test)

M = 17.58 (68% correct)SD = 3.63α = .65

Total Test 1-66

M = 46.59 (70% correct)SD = 7.34α = .78

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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)

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

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?

SALISBURY UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT PROGRESS

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

Academic Profile/MAPP/Proficiency Profile 2005

PROFICIENCY CLASSIFICATION

SKILL DIMENSION

PROFICIENT MARGINAL NOT PROFICIENT

Reading Level 1

70% (66%) 21% (20%) 8% (13%)

Reading Level 2

41% (33%) 21% (22%) 38%(45%)

Critical Thinking

7% (4%) 26% (13%) 67% (83%)

Writing Level 1 80% (68%) 16% (23%) 4% (9%)

Writing Level 2 30% (19%) 45% (38%) 25% (43%)

Writing Level 3 12% (8%) 36% (28%) 52% (64%)

Math Level 1 75% (56%) 21% (28%) 3% (16%)

Math Level 2 48% (27%) 25% (30%) 27% (43%)

Math Level 3 17% (6%) 22% (16%) 61% (78%)

*Values in parentheses represent average % of test-takers from other Master’s Level I & II institutions .

Self Study Assessment Results-2006

Direct measures Indirect measures Oral / written communication

English 101 and 102 – scoring rubric/ department assessment goals; assessments in individual courses

Alumni survey

NSSE

Scientific and quantitative reasoning

ETS (pilot project); some department assessment goals; assessments in individual courses

Alumni survey

NSSE Technological uses in the major

Departmental assessments for majors; assessments in individual courses

Alumni survey

Information literacy Dept assessment goals; individual course assessments

Alumni survey: NSSE

Critical analysis and reasoning

ETS (pilot project); some department assessment goals

Assessments in individual courses

Alumni survey

NSSE

CIRP

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

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

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

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

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?

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

Course-Embedded

Courses serve as data collection venue Focused assignments are integral to

courses; evaluated as part of course grade using common scoring procedure

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Requires no extra “collection” period

Requires course time—intrusive, hard to implement well

Increased student motivation Requires sound sampling plan

Reduced costs Requires ‘common’ assignment and scoring across multiple courses

Faculty-driven Requires additional faculty scoring

Portfolios

Student developed vs. Instructor compiled

Contain samples that demonstrate attainment of specific GE goals and outcomes

Rubric-based evaluation of samplesADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Can be used to evaluate improvement

Scoring can be time consuming

Can evaluate more complex, process-oriented skills

Evaluation method must be explicitly stated to ensure proper evidence is provided

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

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Data collection requires no course time

Consider examinee motivation

Makes assessment an institution-wide commitment; improves greatly over time

Requires institutional commitment; faculty will react poorly at first

Creates a culture of assessment

Additional costs for proctors or faculty

Assessment Season

2-4 week testing window where instruments are offered for completion

Students assigned to certain tests based on a sampling approach

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

No course time required Motivation needs to be examined

Allows for an extended evaluation period

Additional cost to proctor exams

Makes assessment an institution-wide commitment

Requires students to attend session outside of classroom time

DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF ASSESSMENT

The Assessment Culture at JMU

JMU requires students to take a series of student outcomes assessments prior to their graduation. These assessments are held at four stages of students’ academic careers:

as entering first-year students at the mid-undergraduate point when they have earned

45 to 70 credit hours, typically the sophomore year as graduating seniors in their academic major(s) Students will also complete an alumni survey after

graduation

-JMU Undergraduate Catalog

The Assessment Culture at JMU

Long-standing and pervasive expectation at JMU that assessment findings will guide decision-making. Annual reports, Assessment Progress

Templates, program change proposals, and all academic program review self-study documents all require substantial descriptions of how Assessment guides decision-making

The Center for Assessment and Research Studies (CARS) is the largest higher education assessment center in the US with 10 Faculty, 3 Support Staff, and about 15

Graduate Assistants at the Masters and PhD level

The Assessment Culture at JMU

CARS supports all general education assessment

CARS facilitates all JMU alumni surveys CARS supports assessment for every

academic program Undergraduate and Graduate

CARS supports assessment for the Division of Student Affairs

All programs must collect and report on assessment data annually

Academic Program Reviews are scheduled Every 6 years for ALL academic degree programs Every 5 years for General Education ‘clusters’

How do we develop a culture at SU?

Pathway for Institution-Wide Assessment Development

Vision

High Standards

Commitment

Resource

s

Structure

Integratio

nHow assessment

can help meet the mission &

what we want to achieve

with assessment.

Measure well what

matters, not what is easy

to count.

Unswerving commitment

that withstands economic

challenges & changes in leadership

Time and monetary

resources are investments

to ensure student

learning and development

Institutional committees with faculty

and administrator

s to inform process,

share, & use findings.

Integration at all stages to help build a “culture of

evidence” to inform &

strengthen decisions

LUNCH

PROVOSTDR. DIANE ALLEN

GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES WORK GROUPS:

1. CRITICAL THINKING2. COMMAND OF LANGUAGE-WRITING3. QUANTITATIVE LITERACY4. INFORMATION LITERACY- ACCESS INFORMATION EFFICIENTLY, EVALUATE IT CRITICALLY, AND USE IT APPROPRIATELY5. INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

What’s Next?

1. Provide draft GE outcomes to department chairs and request feedback-February 2010

2. Hold open faculty meeting to request feedback on the draft GE outcomes-March/April 2010

3. Present Faculty Senate with draft outcomes and finalize outcomes for a vote-April 2010

4. Use final GE outcomes & information provided at the FDD roundtables to inform UAAC on the development of an institution-wide GE assessment process-Draft Plan-Fall 2010