``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Office of Assessment of Student Learning
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1
THE NEED FOR GENERAL
EDUCATION
1.2
THE HISTORY OF
GENERAL EDUCATION AT
CLEVELAND STATE
UNIVERSITY
General Education
Assessment Plan
at
Cleveland State University
1.3
GENERAL EDUCATION
ASSESSMENT AT
CLEVELAND STATE
UNIVERSITY
Committee Members:
1.4
GENERAL EDUCATION
ASSESSMENT PHASES AT
CLEVELAND STATE
UNIVERSITY
1.5
DATA ANALYSIS AND
REPORTING
1.6
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.7
REFERENCES
Joshua G. Bagaka’s, Student Learning Assessment, Chair
Norbert Delatte, College of Engineering
Cheryl L. Delgado, School of Nursing
Kathyanne W. Dobda, Michael Schwartz Library
Elizabeth Lehfeldt, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Peter Meiksins, Vice Provost for Academic Programs
Linda M. Quinn, College of Science and Health Professions
Graduate Assistant: Jesse Bach
1.1 The Need for General Education
General education is designed to ensure
the development of the essential learning abilities
and competencies that students need to succeed
academically and later on in the work place such
as: oral and written communication, critical
thinking, information and quantitative literacies.
Within the last decade, institutions of higher
education have been increasingly pressured to
become more accountable for the outcomes of
their graduates. This has in part been due to the
expectations of regional and specialized
accrediting bodies, public demand for information
regarding student outcomes, and institutions own
recognition for the need of continuous improving
programs and services.
General education requirements comprise,
on average, approximately 30% of the
undergraduate curriculum and therefore
represent an important component of the student
academic experience in American colleges and
Universities (Brint et al., 2009). It is often the first
college experience for the majority of freshmen
students.
Within the last decade colleges and
universities have increasingly expanded in size,
and student enrollment. This quantitative
expansion has become a backdrop to calls for
increased accountability in order to ensure the
quality of education students receive, even for
those students whose prior academic preparation
is relatively weak and whose primary interests lie
outside of academic life.
General education curriculum plays a
critical role for several reasons. First, it is the
initial college experience for a number of students.
Such an initial college experience can have longlasting impressions for students’ later college life, in
addition to being a potential significant predictor of
student retention. Secondly, general education
accounts for a significant amount of students’
work, particularly during the first half of their
college experience. At Cleveland State University
for instance, the basic foundational General
Education portion accounts for approximately
20,000 students credit hours (SCH) per semester.
That translates to a revenue in excess of 8 million
dollars per semester or 32 million dollars in 4
semesters (see Table 1). These recent data shows
that the basic foundation portion of General
Education at Cleveland State University had an
enrollment of 25,444 SCH in Writing/Composition
and 55,563 SCH in Mathematics/Quantitative
Literacy for the four most recent semesters (fall
2012 to spring 2014).
1.2 History of General Education at Cleveland
State University
During the Fall of 2004 Cleveland State
University President Michael Schwartz challenged
faculty with the question of what a CSU graduate
“ought to know”. This call led the Faculty Senate
to create the Task Force on General Education,
with representation from each of the
undergraduate colleges. The purpose of the task
force was to review existing general education
requirements and recommend any necessary
changes. The task force identified the following
priorities for a revised general education
requirement at CSU:
•
•
•
•
•
•
clearly articulated objectives for general
education
ongoing assessment linked to key learning
objectives
course clusters offering students a more
cohesive general education experience and
the opportunity to develop learning
communities
links between general education and major
programs, including a capstone experience
and collaboration between instructors and
departments teaching general education
courses and the programs whose students
take them
a simple, clear set of general education
requirements
improved mechanisms for overseeing and
reviewing the general education
requirements
1|P
A G E
Table 1: Student Credit Hours (SCH) In Basic Foundation Writing And Quantitative Literacy Courses (Fall 2012 to Spring 2014)
Semester
Writing/Composition
Mathematics/QL
Total
Fall 2012
6,631
13,590
20,221
Spring 2013
5,588
12,308
17,896
Fall 2013
7,295
15,444
22,739
Spring 2014
5,900
13,807
19,707
Total
25,414
55,149
80,563
In March 2007 Cleveland State Universities
Task Force on General Education committed to the
idea that general education should help students to
become informed learners. This required that,
through both general education and study in major
programs, students would acquire intellectual and
practical skills, most importantly the ability to:
• Write effectively
• Use quantitative analysis to describe and
solve problems
• Think critically
• Interpret, evaluate, and use information
from a variety of sources
• Work well in groups, including those of
diverse composition
• Be effective oral communicator
The following three criterion were established to
guide the General Education requirements at CSU:
1. A course can be approved as General
Education in any of the three areas: Natural
Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and
Humanities. Each of these General
Education courses are required to cover at
least two of the six skill areas.
2. Students are required to complete
approximately 40 credit hours of general
education from 9 categories: Introduction
to University Life, Writing, Quantitative
Literacy, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences,
Arts and Humanities, Social Diversity,
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and
Capstone Experience.
A number of public universities in Ohio
have adapted the same skills in their general
education curriculum. For instance, Bowling Green
State University has the same skill areas except for
information literacy. (See Table 2). Quantitative
Literacy, Written, and Oral Communication are the
most commonly specified general education skill
areas in the six selected universities in Ohio. As a
consequence, Phase II of CSU general education
assessment plan will focus on writing and
quantitative literacy before extending to other skill
areas.
1.3 Purpose of General Education Assessment
As faculty and administration devise
assessment techniques to meet increased
accountability demands, they often come across
important assessment questions about these
courses include whether they affect student
attitudes and if so, whether the effects are the
same across the curriculum (Anderson et al.,
2007). In subjects such as composition and
mathematics there are definable skills levels which
are easy to articulate and measure unlike general
education subjects in the social sciences and
humanities (Bers, 2002). There are numerous
issues that arise with general education
assessment and faculty and administration should
not be forced to guess at how to apply assessment
techniques to general education outcomes (Allen,
2006).
2|P
A G E
Table 2: General Education Skill Areas in Selected Ohio Universities
Outcomes
Miami Kent State
Ohio
Bowling Ohio State University of
University University University Green State University Cincinnati
University
Written communication
x
x
x
Quantitative Literacy
x
Critical Thinking
Information Literacy
Working in Groups &
Diversity
Oral Communication
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
In a review of a campus-wide writing
across the curriculum assessment model, Good et
al. (2012) identified that for accountability and
consistency, local administrators should control
the administration process. It was found that (a)
Administrators must initiate the assessment
system design, (b) the design should consider the
expertise of local teachers, researchers and other
stakeholders (c) assessment guarantees should
come from the administration allowing the
system to remain under the supervision of the
individuals who can make programmatic change
and (d) assessment should be used continuously
to improve and strengthen programs.
A well-known out form of general
education assessment model is evident in the
work of Texas A&M University (McLawhon &
Phillips, 2013). Here, assessment has been
divided into four distinctive tiers (see below),
each surrounding campus-wide improvement
and student learning. Their approach is
conducted on a three-year cycle and has
remained constant for three full cycles (12
years).
Tier-I.
Direct measures of assessment. This involves
gathering student work from multiple courses
and working with faculty to identify assignments
that were designed to demonstrate a general
education outcome.
x
Tier-2
Indirect measures of student learning. These
measures are easier to administer than the
previous tier but are administered to large
samples. Examples of tier 2 assessments include
the National Survey of Student Engagement, the
Global Perspectives Inventory, graduation
surveys, and the Student Experience in the
Research University.
Tier-3
Small scale direct assessment of student
learning. The Student Leader Learning
Outcomes Project at Texas A&M University asks
student organization advisers to evaluate
leadership outcomes for students participating in
leadership positions within their organizations.
Each leadership outcome is aligned with the
general education learning outcomes.
Tier-4
Incorporation of findings. The fourth tier of the
model does not involve the categorization of
available assessment measures. Rather, it is a
conceptual framework for incorporating
program-level assessment.
3|P
A G E
Assessment of General Education at
Cleveland State University will incorporate some
of the features of the Texas A & M model,
adopted for the local context. The Youngstown
State University concept of the Repository of
Assessment Document (ROAD) for assessing
writing and critical thinking will provide an
effective mechanism for collecting and scoring
students’ work for scoring (Porter, Palardy,
Messenger, & Fuhrman, 2014).
1.3.1 Purpose of General Education Assessment
at Cleveland State University
In order to understand the purpose of the
assessment of general education, one needs to
first determine the purpose of general education.
In any contemporary university, general
education is critical to ensure that its graduates
are informed learners regardless of their area of
specialization.
At Cleveland State University, a large
number of general education courses are being
offered by various departments across six of the
eight colleges and schools (except Marshall
School of Law and Nursing). The proposed
assessment of general education is therefore
critical to determine whether the program is
meeting its intended objectives.
The purpose of General Education
Assessment at Cleveland State University is
therefore threefold:
1. First, is to meet the expectation of the
Higher Learning Commission (HLC) as
part of the requirement for accreditation
by the North Central Association (NCA).
At its meeting on February 24, 2013, the
HLC Board of Trustees adopted new fourCriterion model for Accreditation. Two of
these criteria highlight the integration of
broad learning and skills (general
education) as integral part of their
specific educational programs, as well as
demonstrating a commitment to
improvement through ongoing
assessment of student learning.
2. Secondly, at CSU, general education
courses are being offered in various
academic units and are therefore not
monitored at a central point. Assessment
of general education therefore plays a
critical role to ensure accountability in
the curriculum and delivery methods.
3. Thirdly, assessment of general education
may provide a unifying and university
wide index of judging institutional
effectiveness. While some of the program
undergo individual accreditations
process, it is beneficial to have an
assessment mechanism to determine the
overall effectiveness of the institution
that includes accredited as well as nonaccreditation programs.
1.4 General Education Assessment Phases at
Cleveland State University
Assessment of general education at
Cleveland State University was initiated by the
Office of Student Learning Assessment with the
help of the Assessment Council. General
Education Select Committee was formed to assist
the Assessment Council and the University
Curriculum Committee (UCC). The plan will then
be shared to the University Faculty Senate and
the university administration for support and
commitment of resources for effective
implementation.
1.4.1 Phase I: General Education Curriculum
Mapping (spring, 2015)
Phase I of the General Education
assessment will involve curriculum mapping of
General Education courses that were designed to
meet any of the following skill areas: writing,
quantitative literacy, critical thinking,
information literacy, working in groups and
diversity, and oral communication. Courses with
high enrollment based on the student credit
hours (SCH) for each of these skill areas will be
targeted for the phase I assessment plan.
4|P
A G E
Tables 1-3 presents examples of high enrollment
courses based on the enrollment numbers in the
four immediate past semesters (fall 2012, spring
2013, fall 2013, and spring 2014) for the writing
and quantitative literacy. This phase will be
implemented in spring 2015.
1.4.2 Phase II: Assessment of Writing and
quantitative literacy (Beginning in fall, 2015).
Phase II assessment of General Education will begin
in fall 2015 and continue every year on a rotational
basis, beginning with writing in fall 2015 and quantitative
literacy in fall 2016. A rotation schedule among
various courses that meet the selected skill areas will
be established by the Director of General Education.
A mixture of freshman, sophomore, and junior level
courses will be selected to participate. This phase of
assessment will focus on direct measures of student
learning by gathering students’ work from relevant
course sections. This assessment phase is modelled
after Tier 1 of the Texas A&M, but customized for the
CSU context using the Youngstown State University
ROAD model (Porter, et al., 2014). The following
sequence of steps will be followed in its
implementation:
Step 1 – In a given semester, the participating
courses and sections are identified by the
Director of General Education and the
instructors in these courses notified. Both the
students and instructor in these courses will be
prompted to upload an anonymous copy of
students’ work into a depository as they submit
to the instructor for grading.
1.4.3 Phase III: Assessment of information
literacy, oral communication, and critical
thinking (Beginning in fall 2016)
Phase III assessment of General Education will
begin in fall 2016 and continue every even
number year through a rotation among various
courses that meet the selected skill areas. A
mixture of freshman, sophomore, and junior level
courses will be selected to participate. This phase
of assessment will utilize both direct and indirect
measures of student learning. Indirect measures
will be collected by administering surveys in
selected high enrollment general education
classes using established survey instruments
such as Global Perspective Inventory and
National Survey of Student Engagement. In order
to obtain direct measures of students learning in
the information literacy and oral communication
skill area, certain courses that meet each of these
will be selected and students will be prompted to
upload their end of semester work to a
depository to be scored by raters using a system
similar to Phase II.
Figure 1: General Education Assessment Flow Chart
Step 2 – A random sample of 100-200 students’
work products will be selected from the
depository for rating using the VALUE Rubrics.
Step 3 – A one-day work session with relevant
faculty, similar to the current assessment review,
will be organized to rate the students work using
the VALUE Rubrics in the summer. Each work
will be scored by two raters in order to establish
inter-rater reliability.
5|P
A G E
Table 3: Student credit hours (SCH) in the Writing/Composition portion of the Basic Foundation General Education
Courses (Fall 2012 to spring 2014)
2012
Fall
Writing I
Writing II (1)
Writing II (2)
ENG 100
ENG 101
Total
ENG 102
ESC 102
MUS 113
UST 102
Total
ENG 240
ENG 241
Total
2013
Spring
1,884
2,145
4,029
1,869
0
0
57
1,926
380
296
676
6,631
Total
2014
Spring
Fall
912
492
1,404
2,964
324
108
48
3,444
364
376
740
5,588
2,020
2,412
4,432
2,028
111
0
60
2,199
352
312
664
7,295
896
525
1,421
3,267
417
99
48
3,831
360
288
648
5,900
Total
5,712
5,574
11,286
10,128
852
207
213
11,400
1,456
1,272
2,728
25,414
Source: CSU Office of Institutional Research
Table 4: Student credit hours (SCH) in the Mathematics/Quantitative Literacy portion of the Basic Foundation General
Education Courses (fall 2012 to spring 2014)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Total
MTH 116
MTH 117
Total
MTH 128/129
MTH147
MTH 148/149
MTH 167/168
MTH 181/182
MTH 328/329
MTH 347
OSM 201/202
Total
SOC 354
UST 404
PSY 311
Total
2012
Fall
2,592
648
3,240
294
1,820
2,452
1,012
1,976
0
232
1,056
8,842
316
256
932
1,508
13,590
2013
Spring
1,860
972
2,832
366
1,440
2,476
812
1,536
92
420
1,002
8,144
160
208
964
1,332
12,308
Fall
3,044
604
3,648
312
2,168
2,976
1,096
2,048
76
324
1,164
10,164
316
256
1,060
1,632
15,444
2014
Spring
1,836
1,056
2,892
438
1,604
2,900
860
1,652
104
620
1,197
9,375
300
332
908
1,540
13,807
Total
9,332
3,280
12,612
1,410
7,032
10,804
3,780
7,212
272
1,596
4,419
36,525
1,092
1,052
3,868
6,012
55,149
Source: CSU Office of Institutional Research
6|P
A G E
1.4.4 Phase IV: Assessment of writing across the
curriculum (Fall 2016)
Phase IV assessment of Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) will be conducted annually
beginning fall 2016, on a rotational basis, each
period focusing on a specific discipline. The
office of the director of general education will
establish the rotational schedule, in such a way to
ensure that each college has an opportunity to
participate at least once every 10 years. This
phase of assessment will utilize direct measures
of student learning similar to the ones used in
Phase II assessment.
1.5 Data Analysis and Reporting
The responsibility for data gathering from
the three assessment phases as well as analyzing,
and reporting of findings will be done by the
office of the Director of General Education.
Reporting will be done annually, at the end of
spring semester to the University Office of
Assessment of Student Learning according to the
following schedule:
•
•
Spring of even number years beginning
2016 - Phase II assessment results
Spring of odd number years beginning
2017 – Phase III assessment results
College Portrait: General Education assessment
data will provide additional information to be
reported as part of the university involvement in
the Collage Portrait. This level of reporting will
be done by the Office of Academic Planning.
1.6 Recommendations for General Education
Assessment at Cleveland State University
The following three recommendations are
deemed necessary for effective implementation
and sustainability of General Education
assessment at Cleveland State University:
1. Re-institute the position of Director of
General Education as recommended by
the Task Force on General Education in
2007. The director of general Education
will work closely with the office of
Assessment of Student Learning to submit
and receive assessment review feedback
in order to disseminate to the units
involved with General Education. The
Director of General Education (or a
representative) will sit in both the UCC
and the Assessment Council.
2. Provide for an on-going professional
development for faculty involved with the
delivery of General Education. These
professional development activities will
be administered in collaboration with the
Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE)
3. Institutionalize the following two events
in the summers with a reasonable stipend
for participants:
a. Sessions for peer review of
program assessment reports by
faculty and staff.
b. Sessions for scoring students’ work
using VALUE Rubrics by relevant
faculty
7|P
A G E
1.7 References
Allen, M. (2006). Assessing General Education Programs. Anker Publishing, Boulton, MA.
Anderson, M., Teisl, M., Criner, G., Tisher,S., Smith, S., Hunter, M., Norton, A., Jellison, J., Alyokhin A.,
Gallandt, E., Haggard, S., & Bicknell, E. (2007). Attitude changes of undergraduate students
in general education courses. The Journal of General Education. 56 (2).
Barnes, G., Cerrito, P., Levi, I. (2004). An assessment of general education mathematics courses via
examination of student expectations and performance. The Journal of General Education.
53 (1).
Bers, T. (2002). Assessing the achievement of general education objectives: A college-wide
approach. The Journal of General Education. 49 (4).
Brint, S., Proctor, K., Murphy, S., Turk-Bicakci, L., Hanneman, R. (2009). General education models:
Continuity and change in undergraduate curriculum, 1975-2000. The Journal of Higher
Education. 80 (6).
Good, J., Osbore, K., & Birchfield, K.(2012). Placing data in the hands of discipline-specific decision
makers: Campus-wide writing program assessment. Assessing Writing. 17
McLawhon, R. & Phillips, L. (2013). General education assessment plan: A four-tiered approach.
The Journal of General Education. 62
Porter, T., Palardy, J., Messenger, A., & Fuhrman, H. (2014). The ROAD: Assessing writing and
critical thinking with VALUE rubrics. Paper presented at the 2014 AAC&U Annual
Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
8|P
A G E