Quality in Undergraduate Education
QUE
Susan Albertine
The College of New Jersey
Gloria John
Baltimore
Ron Henry
Georgia State University
02/21/03
1
Roles
• Communication specialist – Gloria John
• Project adviser – Susan Albertine
• Standards process experts – Education Trust
– Ruth Mitchell
• Funders
– Pew Charitable Trusts – Michelle Seidl
– ExxonMobil Foundation – Ed Ahnert
• Project evaluators - PSA
02/21/03
2
Roles
• Critical friends – disciplinary consultants
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Spencer Benson – biology – U.Maryland
Jay Labov – biology – NRC
Gordon Uno – biology – U. Oklahoma - AIBS
Lendol Calder – history – Augustana College
Mills Kelly – history – George Mason
Jim Roth – history - Alverno
Paul Bodmer – English – NCTE
Susan Ganter – mathematics - Clemson
Bernie Madison – mathematics – MAA
Jerry Sarquis – chemistry – Miami Univ. Ohio - ACS
02/21/03
3
QUE Milestones
• Stage 1: Learning outcomes: What should
students know, understand, and be able to
do?
– Learning outcomes for level 14
– Learning outcomes for level 16
– Disciplinary contributions to General
Education learning outcomes
02/21/03
4
QUE Milestones
• Stage 2: Assessment: What is acceptable
evidence that students have attained
desirable understandings and
proficiencies?
– Aligning assignment with learning outcome
– Developing scoring guides or rubrics
– Constructing performance standards for a
learning outcome
– Scoring student work
02/21/03
5
QUE Milestones
• Stage 3: Practical ideas for learning
experiences and instruction
– Coping with large numbers of students
– Value of rubrics
– Using electronic portfolios
02/21/03
6
QUE Milestones
• Stage 4: Moving to program level
– Learning outcomes for sequences of courses
– Gap analysis or Super-matrix
– Impact of QUE work on department’s
curriculum
02/21/03
7
QUE Milestones
• Stage 5: Dissemination of best practices
– Present at disciplinary association meetings
• Disciplinary associations adopt learning outcomes
– Present at national meetings such as AAHE and
AAC&U
– Publish monograph of case studies
– Provide clearinghouse for rubrics, database for
examples of exemplar work at various levels
02/21/03
8
Framework for Cognitive
Outcomes
Inheritance x
Abstract,
ProcessOriented
Accumulated
Experience
Verbal Reasoning; Quantitative Reasoning;
Spatial Reasoning
Reasoning; Comprehending;
Problem Solving; Decision Making
In and across broad Disciplines
Concrete,
Content02/21/03
Oriented
Knowledge
Direct
Declarative Procedural Schematic Strategic Experience
Acquired in a Discipline
9
Why we are here - Objectives
• Assessment – the heart of the matter –
Standards in practice –
Scoring guide development
• To develop teaching strategies for assisting
students in achieving standards
• Better overlap of the delivered curriculum and
the experienced curriculum
02/21/03
10
Agenda
Cluster Groups: Friday after dinner
Plenary Panel: Saturday 8:30-10:15 am
Disciplinary Group meetings: Saturday 10:30-noon
 What did you like best about the panel?
 What was relevant to your discipline?
Disciplinary Group meetings: Saturday1:00-3:00 pm;
Sunday 9:00-10:30 am
Cross-disciplinary meeting: Saturday 3:15-4:30 pm
Focus Groups and Cluster Coordinators: Saturday 4:30-5:30 pm
Wrap up: Sunday 10:30-11:30 am
02/21/03
11
Agenda
Panel Plenary: Saturday 8:30-10:15 am
Learning Across the Disciplines
Susan Albertine (moderator)
Lendol Calder
Susan Ganter
James Roth
Gordon Uno
02/21/03
12
Framing Questions
What does my discipline need
from your discipline?
What strategies does your
discipline use for crossdisciplinary competencies?
•Empathy; Conceptual understanding;
•Sensitivity to multiple perspectives;
•Problem solving; Sourcing; Data analysis;
•Recognizing limits of knowledge
02/22/03
13
QUE Objectives
• Development and use of standards for lower
division to facilitate the transition to upper
division within 4-year institutions and for
transfer from 2-year to 4-year institutions
• Development and use of standards for
graduation from college
• Levels 14 and 16 represent performance-bound
learning [not the time it takes to get there]
• Learner-centered learning, not time-specific or
place-specific learning
02/21/03
14
QUE Deliverables
• Department and campus draft learning
outcomes, performance descriptions,
collections of student work, and assessments
of student learning
02/21/03
15
Aligned course
----
------
----
02/21/03
16
Aligned Curriculum
Courses
B
Program
E
I
F
A
C
G
D
02/21/03
J
H
17
Value of involvement in QUE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conversations of faculty across institutions
=> more trust engendered between partners
=> learning from experiences of other institutions
Value of Learning Community
=> for both faculty and students
More emphasis on student reflection
=> e-portfolio is a vehicle
02/21/03
18
Best Practices
• Make expectations for students explicit
• Give students opportunity to practice skills
by engaging content being presented
• Faculty collaboration leading to
reinforcement of student development
through learning outcomes across courses
rather than just in bookend courses
02/21/03
19
Best Practices
• Make expectations for faculty explicit
• Give faculty opportunity to practice skills
by engaging content being presented
• Faculty collaboration leading to
reinforcement of faculty development of
learning outcomes across courses rather
than just in bookend courses
02/21/03
20
Some final points about
developing assessment
• Keeping looping back to actual student
work
• It’s less about establishing “Measures” than
about building “Communities of
Judgement”
• It doesn’t stand still
• Two most important adjectives are
– draft and voluntary
02/21/03
21
Next meetings
Meeting in September 19-21, 2003 in New
Orleans
Focus on design and student work
Potential speaker – Grant Wiggins
National meeting in spring 2004
02/21/03
22
Quality in Undergraduate Education
QUE
Susan Albertine
The College of New Jersey
Gloria John
Baltimore
Ron Henry
Georgia State University
02/21/03
23