Karen Webber Bauer
Presented to
Academic Affairs Faculty Symposium
Unicoi State Park, Helen GA
March 30, 2007 kwbauer@uga.edu

Fall 2006
• 33,959 students
• SAT = 1228
•
From 131 countries, many US states
•
4,000 courses per term
• 900,000 student credit hours per year
• High retention and graduation rates
• 8,546 degrees awarded 05-06
•
Total revenues of $1.24 billion (FY06)
• 18 million square feet of space

•
Academically
•
Psychosocially
•
Alcohol use
•
Grades, majors

• Why students depart prior to graduation
•
How and when do student most effectively learn
• Lecture vs. small groups, classroom, distance, etc.
•
How study abroad, internships affects the thinking, actions of our students
•
Who and why go to work and grad school
•
Perceptions of alumni
•
How Gen Ed intermeshes with goals & objectives in the major

• And that’s great!

Improvement Accountability

LCs; Capstone
NSSE
Writing Rubric
Program Eval
No one measure adequate

Level 1:
I ndividual
Level w/in course
Level 2: Individual learning level across courses
Emphasize self-reflection
Level 3: Course level
Portfolios, embedded, common assignments, capstone,
Level 4: Program level
Embedded, portfolios, common across multi-sections, capstones
Level 5: Institutional level
Summarized info at institution-wide level
From Miller, R. & Leskes, A. (2005). Levels of Assessment: From the Student to the Institution.
Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.

• Objective exams
•
Reflective essays
• Portfolios
•
Case studies
• Small group assignments
•
Research paper/lab report
• Oral exams
•
Performances

• http://wsuctproject.wsu.edu/ctr.htm
• http://eng.auburn.edu/programs/chen/programs/accreditation/ assessment-rubrics.html
• http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/rubrics.shtml
• http://faculty.academyart.edu/resources/rubrics.asp
• http://www.winona.edu/AIR/rubrics.htm
• http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

• One minute paper
•
Muddiest point
• Point-counterpoint
•
Mind maps
• Journal entries
•
Peer lessons
• Card sort
See Silberman, M. (1996). Active Learning: 101 Strategies. Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
•
Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique http://www.epsteineducation.com/ifat.php

• Sure, but can’t be the only evidence
• Tell us how well a student performed but don’t tell us if s/he mastered components such as critical thinking, writing skills over full program
• Don’t tell us what students learn in cocurricular activites

Ask yourself:
•
Is the outcome measurable?
•
Is it meaningful?
•
Is it manageable?
• How will I know when it’s been achieved; how do I develop systematic assessment?
Adapted from Bresciani, M. (2004). Outcomes-Based Academic & Cocurricular Program Review.

(see handout)
• Design an experiment to test a chemical hypothesis
•
Write with clarity, coherence, correctness
• Use voice, movement to interpret a dramatic character
NOT Easily Measurable:
•
Think critically
•
Be a lifelong learner
•
Be a good citizen

•
Improvement
• Individual faculty and departmental curriculum
•
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
•
Accountability
•
Reaffirmation of Accreditation

•
Carefully designed and focused set of activities that address one or more aspects of student learning.
•
Complements the ongoing institution-wide evaluation already occurring
• Evolves from a series of discussions, reflection of what we know, where we are going
• Plan must be submitted 4-6 weeks prior to site visit

• May include addressing changes in students’ knowledge, skills, behaviors, and/or values
•
Examples:
• enhancing the academic climate for learning
• increasing student engagement in learning
• strengthening general education curriculum
• enhancing critical thinking skills
• enhancing innovative teaching strategies
• introducing innovations in use of technology in curriculum

•
Regarding Teaching and Learning-- use the break out sessions and other discussion time to explore:
•
Summary of current activity
•
Opportunities for advancement
•
Measures to assess success
•
What resources needed
•
Impact on faculty

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Online teaching goals inventory . Center for Teaching, University of Iowa. http://www.uiowa.edu/~centeach/tgi/
Angelo, T. & Cross, P. (2000). Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom’s Taxonomy: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm
Bresciani, M. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Critical Thinking Community: http://www.criticalthinking.org/
Collaborative Learning – info from UD’s Center for Teaching Effectiveness: http://cte.udel.edu/ccl.htm
Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus. A learning-centered approach. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing.
Huba, M & Freed J. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses : shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning. Boston: Anker Publishing.
Walvoord, B. (1998). Effective grading : a tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.