PROGRAM ASSESSMENT FORM
LEARNING OUTCOMES
FALL 2012 AND SPRING 2013
Name of Program: General Education (External Assessment)
Name of Program Leader: Kris De Welde
Date: 11 April, 2013
LEARNING OUTCOME(S)
External assessment of the General Education Program is accomplished through application
of the ETS® Proficiency Profile, a nationally-normed, standardized test for the assessment of
college-level skills in the areas of Reading/Critical Thinking, Writing, and Mathematics. Each
of these three skill areas is further divided into three proficiency levels (Level 1, Level 2, and
Level 3). Each proficiency level is defined by ETS® in terms of a set of specific competencies
expected of students. The 2-hour standard form of the ETS® Proficiency Profile was selected
by members of the 2009-2010 General Education Task Force in order to provide external
validation of embedded assessments for the General Education Competencies of Critical
Thinking, Written Communication, and Quantitative Reasoning, as part of the 2010-2015
General Education Assessment Plan.
For a complete list of the FGCU General Education Competencies, please see Appendix A.
ASSESSMENT PLAN
Name and brief description of the instruments/rubrics.
The two-hour standard form of the ETS® Proficiency Profile test comprises 108 questions
assessing student skills in Reading, Critical Thinking, Writing, and Mathematics. The
standard-form assessment reports provide the overall total score for the students, their
individual proficiency levels, norm-referenced scores, individual and group subscores and
proficiencies, and comparative institutional data.
For a complete list of the ETS® Proficiency Profile proficiency levels, skills and
competencies please see Appendix B.
Brief description of what is to be assessed/measured.
The Standard Form A version of the ETS® Proficiency Profile was administered to volunteer
students across a selection of General Education courses. Tests were administered and
proctored by Testing Services on the FGCU campus, where they were taken and scored
electronically.
Date(s) of administration.
The tests were administered from February 04 – March 29, 2013.
Sample (number of students, % of class, level, demographics).
Faculty teaching General Education courses in Composition, History, Sociology, and
Psychology, as well as the course coordinator for Visual and Performing Arts were advised of the
ETS® Proficiency Profile assessment initiative in the fall 2012 semester (n=66 faculty). They
General Education External Assessment 2013
1
were asked to consider allowing announcements about the voluntary test to be made in their
courses. 20 faculty responded. The Director of General Education was thus able to invite
students in 26 sections of General Education courses to participate in the initiative (1,725
students). Approximately100 students responded to the invitation, 54 scheduled to take the
exam, and 44 completed the exam. 38 native students completed the exam, while 6 transfer
students did. Of these, 65% were first-year students (fewer than 30 credit hours completed), 26%
were second year students (between 30-60 credit hours completed), and 9% were third-year
students (61-91 credit hours completed). One FTIC exam was not included in the score reports
because the student answered less than 75% of the questions.
DATA ANALYSIS
The comparative institutional category for FGCU was: Masters (Comprehensive) Colleges
and Universities I & II. The following were the Total Mean Scores (possible range: 400-500
points) from the assessment, organized by student level, in comparison with similar
institutions:
FGCU
Masters I & II
Institutions
All Institutions
445.89
437.40
438.45
Total Mean Score
“Sophomore”
(26% of our sample)
445.36
438.99
439.06
Total Mean Score
“Junior”
(9% of our sample)
452.50
441.74
441.53
Total Mean Score
“Freshman”
(65% of our sample)
Participating FGCU students’ Total Mean Score was 8.49 points higher than for
freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 7.44
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institutions. Similarly, our
sophomore status students’ Total Mean Score was 6.37 points higher than for
sophomores at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 6.30
points higher than for sophomores at all participating institutions. Our junior status
students’ Total Mean Score was 10.76 points higher than for juniors at other
participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 10.97 points higher than
for juniors at all participating institutions.
It is noteworthy that the junior total mean score is 6.61 points higher than the freshmen,
suggesting improvement in learning and skills mastery over time.
Because the majority of the sample (65%) was first-year students, it is more meaningful to
compare this group across the Academic Skills Subscores to freshmen at other participating
institutions. The following were the Mean Academic Skills Subscores (possible range: 100130 points) from the assessment, organized by student level, in comparison with other
participating institutions:
General Education External Assessment 2013
2
FGCU
Freshmen
Reading
Subscore
Critical
Thinking
Subscore
Writing
Subscore
Mathematics
Subscore
Masters I & II
Institutions
Freshmen
All Institutions
Freshmen
118.11
115.77
116.09
112.15
109.95
110.28
115.22
112.87
113.11
114.81
111.89
112.09
Mean Reading Subscore for the sample freshmen at FGCU was 2.34 points higher than for
freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 2.02
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institutions.
Mean Critical Thinking Subscore for the sample freshmen at FGCU was 2.2 points higher than
for freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 1.87
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institutions.
Mean Writing Subscore for the sample freshmen at FGCU was 2.35 points higher than for
freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 2.11
points higher than for students at all participating institutions.
Mean Mathematics Subscore for the sample FGCU freshmen was 2.93 points higher than
for freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 2.72
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institutions.
The results of this assessment suggest that FGCU freshmen who completed the exam are,
on average, more proficient in all of these key skills – reading, critical thinking, writing,
and mathematics – than other freshmen at participating institutions.
The following were the Mean Context-Based Subscores (possible range: 100-130 points)
from the assessment, in comparison with other participating institutions:
FGCU
Freshmen
Masters I & II
Institutions
Freshmen
All Institutions
Freshmen
Humanities
Subscore
114.41
113.04
113.38
Social
Sciences
Subscore
113.48
111.77
112.05
Natural
Sciences
Subscore
116.30
113.60
113.86
Mean Humanities Subscore for the sample FGCU freshmen was 1.37 points higher than
for freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 1.03
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institution types.
General Education External Assessment 2013
3
Mean Social Sciences Subscore for the sample FGCU freshmen was 1.71 points higher than
for freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 1.43
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institution types.
Mean Natural Sciences Subscore for the sample FGCU freshmen was 2.43 points higher
than freshmen at other participating Masters (Comprehensive) I & II Institutions, and 2.44
points higher than for freshmen at all participating institution types.
The results of this assessment suggest that the sampled FGCU freshmen are, on average, more
proficient than freshmen at other participating institutions in skills relating to the humanities,
social sciences and natural sciences.
For the full ETS® Proficiency Profile Summary of Scaled Scores for freshmen in this
assessment, please see Appendix C.
The full ETS® Proficiency Profile comparative statistics for Freshmen (Fewer than 30
semester hours or fewer than 45 quarter hours) at Masters (Comprehensive) Colleges
and Universities I & II, July 2007 2006 through June 2012, can be found at the
following link: http://www.ets.org/s/proficiencyprofile/pdf/CredF_Carn2_AllTabs.pdf
The full ETS® Proficiency Profile comparative statistics for Freshmen (Fewer than 30
semester hours or fewer than 45 quarter hours) at all participating institution types, July
2007 through June 2012, can be found at the following link:
http://www.ets.org/s/proficiencyprofile/pdf/CredF_CarnA_AllTabs.pdf
A full listing of all the comparative data files, is found at the following link:
http://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/compare_data/
The ETS® Proficiency Profile also provides a Proficiency Classification indicating the
percentage of test-takers rated as “Proficient,” “Marginal” and “Not Proficient” for the skill
dimensions of Reading, Critical Thinking, Writing and Mathematics. For the full list and
criteria for the ETS® proficiency levels, skills and competencies, please see Appendix B.
Following are the proficiency classifications provided for the sample set of FGCU freshmen:
Skill Dimension
Proficiency Classification
Proficient
Marginal
Not Proficient
Reading, Level 1
67%
19%
15%
Reading, Level 2
37%
22%
41%
Critical Thinking
11%
7%
81%
Writing, Level 1
67%
33%
0%
Writing, Level 2
22%
33%
44%
Writing, Level 3
11%
15%
74%
Mathematics, Level 1
59%
37%
4%
General Education External Assessment 2013
4
Mathematics, Level 2
37%
22%
41%
Mathematics, Level 3
11%
19%
70%
86% of the sampled FGCU freshmen were classified as either “Proficient” or “Marginal”
for Reading, Level 1, while 59% were classified as “Proficient” or “Marginal” for Reading,
Level 2, and 81% were classified as “Not Proficient” for Critical Thinking.
100% of the sampled FGCU freshmen were classified as either “Proficient” of “Marginal”
for Writing, Level 1, while 55% were classified as “Proficient” or “Marginal” for Writing,
Level 2, and 74% were classified as “Not Proficient” for Writing, Level 3.
96% of the sampled FGCU freshmen were classified as either “Proficient” of “Marginal” for
Mathematics, Level 1, while 59% were classified as “Proficient” or “Marginal” for
Mathematics, Level 2, and 70% were classified as “Not Proficient” for Mathematics, Level
3.
Proficiency Classifications for FGCU Freshmen
While it is not meaningful to make comparisons of FGCU sophomores and juniors who
completed the ETS Proficiency Profile exam (eleven and four students respectively) with
students at other participating institutions, it is valuable to take the group of students who
completed the exam (43 total) and consider their overall proficiency classifications in reading,
critical thinking, writing, and mathematics.
Following are the proficiency classifications provided for the entire sample of FGCU students
who participated in the exam:
Skill Dimension
Proficiency Classification
Proficient
Marginal
Not Proficient
Reading, Level 1
65%
14%
21%
Reading, Level 2
35%
26%
40%
General Education External Assessment 2013
5
Critical Thinking
12%
9%
79%
Writing, Level 1
67%
30%
2%
Writing, Level 2
21%
40%
40%
Writing, Level 3
9%
16%
74%
Mathematics, Level 1
53%
33%
14%
Mathematics, Level 2
33%
21%
47%
Mathematics, Level 3
12%
16%
72%
79% of the sampled FGCU students were classified as either “Proficient” or “Marginal” for
Reading, Level 1, while 66% were classified as “Marginal” or “Not Proficient” for
Reading, Level 2, and 79% were classified as “Not Proficient” for Critical Thinking.
97% of the sampled FGCU freshmen were classified as either “Proficient” of “Marginal”
for Writing, Level 1, while 80% were classified as “Marginal” or “Not Proficient” for
Writing, Level 2, and 74% were classified as “Not Proficient” for Writing, Level 3.
86% of the sampled FGCU freshmen were classified as either “Proficient” of “Marginal” for
Mathematics, Level 1, while 68% were classified as “Marginal” or “Not Proficient” for
Mathematics, Level 2, and 72% were classified as “Not Proficient” for Mathematics, Level
3.
Proficiency Classifications for all FGCU Students Participating in the Exam
General Education External Assessment 2013
6
USE OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING
Findings for the AY 2012-2013 external assessment have been shared with the Dean for
Undergraduate Studies and the Associate Vice President for Planning and Institutional
Performance.
These assessment findings are to be considered tentatively, at best. With such low numbers of
students completing the exam, we can make inferences only about the sample of students who
have taken the exam, and not all FGCU students. That is, the sample is not representative.
The 2010-2015 General Education Assessment Plan included administering the online standard
format version of the ETS® Proficiency Profile during the spring semester of AY 2011-2012,
to a group of up to 300 volunteer students of Junior status (61-90 semester hours or 91-145
quarter hours completed). For comparative purposes, these would have been divided into
cohort groups of First-Time-In-College (FTIC) and Transfer students. However, the execution
of this plan fell short, and only five students completed the exam. Thus, we were unable to
benchmark scores for FGCU juniors.
The previous external assessment (2010-2011 AY) focused on freshmen who completed the
ETS® Proficiency Profile, Standard Form B (paper form). Again, while comparisons should
be made very tentatively, the total mean score for students in that assessment was 429.84, 6.77
points lower than the comparable Masters I & II institutions, and 7.64 points lower than all
institutions. In this round of assessment, FGCU students scored higher across the categories
(i.e., freshmen, sophomore, junior).
Similarly, the Context-Based Subscores were lower than comparable institutions across the
board in the 201-2011 AY external assessment, while they were higher across the board in this
year’s assessment.
This sample demonstrates proficiency in Reading Level 1, Writing Level 1, and Mathematics
Level 1. The students in this sample are marginally proficient, or not proficient in higher-level
Reading, Writing, and Mathematics as well as in the general skill of Critical Thinking.
The findings from this assessment are supported by our rubric-based assessments in General
Education (writing and critical thinking, using Association of American Colleges and
Universities VALUE rubrics). Results of these more robust assessments do result in curricular
changes to improve student learning.
In order for future comparisons to be meaningful in improving student learning, the remaining
tests will need to be administered to a larger group of students who are required to take the
exam as part of a course. The 2013-14 AY assessment will include administering the remaining
251 ETS® Proficiency Profile exams (Standard Form A, online) to native students in the
required University Colloquium course. Tests will be administered and proctored by staff at the
FGCU Testing Center. Results will be collected from ETS® by the Director of General
Education. Comparison of scores for the AY 2013-2014 (juniors) and AY 2010-2011
(freshmen) assessments will provide data on improvement of student achievement of academic
skills within the FGCU General Education Program. Test results and data will be reported to the
Dean for Undergraduate Studies, the Associate Vice President for Planning and Institutional
Performance, and the General Education Council, for dissemination to faculty within the
General Education Program.
General Education External Assessment 2013
7
APPENDIX A – FGCU General Education Competencies
Competency 1: Quantitative Reasoning
 Solve mathematical problems;
 Analyze and interpret quantitative data;
 Summarize data into graphic and tabular formats;
 Make valid inferences from data;
 Distinguish between valid and invalid quantitative analysis and reasoning.

Competency 2: Written Communication
 Employ the conventions of standard written English;
 Select a topic, and develop it for a specific audience and purpose, with respect for diverse
perspectives;
 Organize and present relevant content with coherence, clarity, and unity;
 Develop research skills including the ability to collect, analyze, synthesize, and accurately
present and document information;
 Use appropriate language to convey meaning effectively;
 Apply critical reading skills.

Competency 3: Critical Thinking
 Define an issue or problem using appropriate terminology;
 Select, organize, and evaluate information;
 Identify and analyze assumptions made by oneself and others;
 Synthesize information, and draw reasoned inferences;
 Develop and clearly state a position, taking into account all relevant points of view;
 Formulate an informed and logical conclusion, and test it for viability.
History: Approved by General Education Council on 11/2/05; revised and approved on 4/12/11
General Education External Assessment 2013
8
APPENDIX B – ETS® Proficiency Profile
Proficiency Levels, Skills and Competencies
Proficiency Levels
The skills measured by the ETS® Proficiency Profile Test are grouped into three skill areas:
 reading and critical thinking
 writing
 mathematics
Within each of these three skill areas, the specific skills tested by the ETS® Proficiency Profile test are
classified into three proficiency levels, identified simply as Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3. Each
proficiency level is defined in terms of a set of specific competencies expected of students.
Skills Tested at Each Level
Reading and Critical Thinking
To be considered proficient at Level 1, a student should be able to:
 recognize factual material explicitly presented in a reading passage
 understand the meaning of particular words or phrases in the context of a reading passage
To be considered proficient at Level 2, a student should be able to:
 synthesize material from different sections of a passage
 recognize valid inferences derived from material in the passage
 identify accurate summaries of a passage or of significant sections of the passage
 understand and interpret figurative language
 discern the main idea, purpose, or focus of a passage or a significant portion of the passage
To be considered proficient at Level 3, a student should be able to:
 evaluate competing causal explanations
 evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts
 determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion
 determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported by evidence contained in a work
 recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art
 evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for investigating a question of causation
 evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses or methods
Writing
To be considered proficient at Level 1, a student should be able to:
 recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and
conjunctions)
 recognize appropriate transition words
 recognize incorrect word choice
 order sentences in a paragraph
 order elements in an outline
To be considered proficient at Level 2, a student should be able to:
 incorporate new material into a passage
 recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and
conjunctions) when these elements are complicated by intervening words or phrases
 combine simple clauses into single, more complex combinations
 recast existing sentences into new syntactic combinations
General Education External Assessment 2013
9
To be considered proficient at Level 3, a student should be able to:
 discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of parallelism
 discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of idiomatic language
 recognize redundancy
 discriminate between correct and incorrect constructions
 recognize the most effective revision of a sentence
Mathematics
To be considered proficient at Level 1, a student should be able to:
 solve word problems that would most likely be solved by arithmetic and do not involve
conversion of units or proportionality. (These problems can be multistep if the steps are
repeated rather than embedded.)
 solve problems involving the informal properties of numbers and operations, often involving the
Number Line, including positive and negative numbers, whole numbers and fractions (including
conversions of common fractions to percent, such as converting 1/4 to 25%)
 solve problems requiring a general understanding of square roots and the squares of numbers
 solve a simple equation or substitute numbers into an algebraic expression
 find information from a graph. This task may involve finding a specified piece of information in
a graph that also contains other information
To be considered proficient at Level 2, a student should be able to:
 solve arithmetic problems with some complications, such as complex wording, maximizing or
minimizing, and embedded ratios. These problems include algebra problems that can be solved
by arithmetic (the answer choices are numeric)
 simplify algebraic expressions, perform basic translations, and draw conclusions from algebraic
equations and inequalities. These tasks are more complicated than solving a simple equation,
though they may be approached arithmetically by substituting numbers
 interpret a trend represented in a graph, or choose a graph that reflects a trend
 solve problems involving sets; problems have numeric answer choices
To be considered proficient at Level 3, a student should be able to:
 solve word problems that would be unlikely to be solved by arithmetic; the answer choices are
either algebraic expressions or numbers that do not lend themselves to back-solving
 solve problems involving difficult arithmetic concepts, such as exponents and roots other than
squares and square roots, and percent of increase or decrease
 generalize about numbers (e.g., identify the values of (x) for which an expression increases as
(x) increases)
 solve problems requiring an understanding of the properties of integers, rational numbers, etc.
 interpret a graph in which the trends are to be expressed algebraically or one of the following is
involved: exponents and roots other than squares and square roots, percent of increase or
decrease
 solve problems requiring insight or logical reasoning
From: ETS® Proficiency Profile User’s Guide dated June 21, 2010, pages 9-11.
Link for complete document: http://www.ets.org/s/proficiencyprofile/pdf/Users_Guide.pdf
General Education External Assessment 2013
10
Appendix C – ETS® Proficiency Profile
Summary of Scaled Scores
11