General Education Committee Minutes, 2/19/14
Members present: L. Calderon, A. Dresselhaus, K. Huthaily, J. Randall, K. Reiser, T. Shearer, T.
Squires, E. Uchimoto, N. White
Members Absent: H. Ausland, S. Caro
Ex-officio Members present: N. Hinman, B. Howard
Guest: A. Walker-Andrews
Professor Uchimoto was welcomed to the committee and members introduced themselves.
The minutes from 2/5/14 were approved.
Communication

Associate Provost Walker-Andrews spoke to the Committee about the accreditation requirement
to assess the University’s General Education Program. The third self-study, now available
online (Camie will send the instructions to access). It addresses the core themes, resources, and
various standards. Committee members should review section 2C.9 and 2C.10. The seven year
report must show evidence of assessment. If the University is not accredited it cannot accept
federal financial aid for students.
Last year the General Education Committee adopted the essential learning outcomes as aligning
with the University’s goals for general education found in the preamble. The University must
work on assessing the integrated program that looks at outcomes (students work). There are
numerous ways for assessment. Some possibilities include:
o Assess each of the general education groups. Ask instructors how they are assessing
learning outcomes. Randomly select courses and students’ answers to test questions or
some other assignment. One concern with this approach is the perception of assessing
the faculty member’s teaching.
o Develop another set of learning outcomes that apply to the program as a whole, such as
critical thinking. Then develop a mechanism to assess students’ demonstration of
critical thinking before they graduate. One suggestion was to use work produced in
capstone courses. The mechanism is totally up to the faculty.
Many of the statements in the preamble don’t appear to be assessable. Chair White created a list.
The rolling review of the general education groups assesses the inputs. The Committee has
discovered issues with some of the criteria as a result of the review and is working to better define
some of the groups and evaluate the distinctions between the groups and the relationship to the
goals/preamble. This information can be included in the accreditation report, but it should be
accompanied by a defensible explanation in addition to efforts that look at students’ work.
The University must demonstrate that the general education program actually does what it is
intended to do - that somehow measures what students are learning that does not involve students’
self- reporting. The assessment should show that students understand conceptual ideas, not that
they are given passing grades in courses. The assessment report will be multi-faceted and involve a
sampling of students work. It will be difficult to develop a mechanism that fits everything. The
questions must be aligned with the intent of general education in order to accurately measure.
When done well assessment will benefit students. A practical example is language proficiency
interviews that assess students’ ability to use the language in real life situations. The University
must show progress in the next accreditation report. There will be a virtual visit by the accreditors
March 19th -21st. The Provost’s Office won’t know who they will want to visit until a few days
before or whether they will provide questions in advance.
There are lots of examples available online of how other universities are assessing general
education. Appalachian State, for example, applied value rubrics to students work, but found that
only 50% of students work sampled could be scored using the rubric because the instructor was not
aware that the rubric was going to be used. Several examples of types of assessment were
discussed. Such as asking students the same question at the beginning of the semester and at the
end, or collecting portfolios of random students’ work embedded in courses from diverse
disciplines. Moodle could be used for instructors to upload students work as evidence of their
learning course outcomes. The Committee could start by asking instructors teaching general
education course on Moodle to send student artifacts. The Committee could create a Likert survey
developed from the preamble.
The new writing assessment involves students uploading papers from approved writing courses on
Moodle. The students’ identity remains anonymous but their biographical and other information
found in Banner, such as class and major is collected for analysis. The papers are then scored using
a holistic rubric by volunteer faculty (all approved writing course instructors are invited to
participate) at a retreat.
The assessment should be systematic and involve shared definitions. A four-point rubric is
typically used. Associate Provost Walker Andrews indicated that a sample size of perhaps 50
students from each general education area would be acceptable. There are several levels where the
assessment could take place. The committee needs to decide which areas can be assessed. Interim
Associate Provost Hinman thought science core competencies (evolution, structure and function,
information flow, and etc) could apply to any general education science course and other groups as
well.
Chair White asked that members consider possible options for assessment. She will circulate the
service learning assessment document as well as her evaluation of assessable items in the preamble.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.