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
GE Program Assessment,
AY 05-06

Need to move beyond usual courselevel 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
•Task Force 1: Oral Communication
Ruth Guzley, AURA, CMST, Chair
Mitch Johns, GEAC, AGRIC
Susan Avanzino, CMST
Additional faculty with expertise, interest
•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
Coordinating
Committee:
1. Fernlund (AURA),
2. Loker (Dean UED)
3. Alger (GEAC)
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”
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
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
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
5. Student work
collected from
appropriate courses
Sp 06
6. Assessment of
student work by Task
Forces & faculty AprilMay 06
7. Assessment results
analyzed and written
up Summer 06
8. Results reported
to Provost, campus
August 06
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?
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