The general education council realizes that more than individual course assessment is needed to measure the success of the general education program. Meaningful and deep learning occurs over the course of a whole college education; it is the cumulative effect of many courses. Measures to evaluate the program as a whole are needed. The CAAP test (Rising Junior exam) is designed to test just this cumulative effect and so serves as one significant measure of intellectual skills developed and advanced in the general education program. It does not, however, cover all the skills, nor does it cover the area objectives or the attitudes/values side of the program. The council, therefore, proposes that a student survey be used as a measure for evaluating the objectives within each general education area and to some degree the skills and attitudes/values component of the whole program. An example is linked here for Humanities. The council is interested in working with faculty within every area to develop surveys similar to this survey. The departments will distribute and collect these surveys in their sections; the council will take responsibility for producing these surveys and for compiling the data. The results of the survey will be shared with departments.
However, the council would like departments to develop one effective evaluative measure for their general education course(s) as a whole relative to the general education area objectives and if appropriate the objectives of the skill or skills the course addresses and the attitudes/values objectives. Keep the plan simple. One effective measure the department thinks will provide meaningful assessment should be submitted. Assessment questions: How will the department know if important learning outcomes for the course have been achieved? Course or program assessment is not a matter of assessing individual student performance (as when we grade students) but a matter of evaluating the course or the program as a whole. What “grade” do we give our whole course? How does the course measure up relative to the purposes we have set for it?
The council suggests the following as possible assessment measures. A set of test questions on the final exam for all sections of the course is often appropriate; such an assessment should give the department an overall sense of the course’s effectiveness in achieving the learning outcomes for the course. If the department wishes they could also give a brief entrance test over the same material; this provides a point of departure for setting the evaluative standard. In other areas, it is more appropriate to focus on intellectual or practical “know how,” and then a shared “rubric” for evaluating student work across all sections could be used. An example for a critical thinking rubric is here. Student focus groups might also be used as an effective measure for some courses. These suggestions are not exhaustive of the possibilities.
The following is a template for assessment plans. At this point A, B and C should be addressed in the assessment plan for the course. But please note that the information under D and E will need to be reported to the general education council each year.
A.
Objectives. Every plan should indicate which objectives will be the focus
of the assessment. Objectives
should be clearly tied to the relevant area objectives, but some area objectives
might receive more weight than others. For
example, at present, Contemporary Moral Problems, a humanities general education
course, measures the humanities area objectives through specific objectives
appropriate for an applied moral philosophy course.
Included in the humanities objectives is a critical thinking objective,
and so the course focuses heavily on the skill of critical thinking. See
linked example.
B.
Assessment Vehicle. Every plan
should decide on a measure for the objectives.
If possible decide on one effective measure for the area objectives.
Contemporary Moral Problems, a humanities general education course, could
use exam questions across all sections that measure the humanities objectives
through specific outcomes appropriate for an applied moral philosophy course.
C.
Standard for Success. Every plan
should set a measure for what counts as success.
If the department uses an entrance test then there is a point of
departure. Without an entrance
measure generated, the faculty must stipulate a standard for success.
This stipulation will be similar to what we do as we grade papers or
presentations, except that all faculty teaching the course should come to a
consensus on the standard for success in achieving the objective.
For example, at present, Contemporary Moral Problems stipulates that at
least 80% of students will achieve a satisfactory or higher grade on each of the
exam questions. This stipulation
could be adjusted subsequent to the first few review cycles.
If a significant number of students (more than 20%) across all sections
miss an exam question, the department should review its approach to the
objective(s) this question addresses.
D.
Results: Report results for the evaluative measure.
E.
Conclusions/recommendations: Consider the meaning and significance of the
results here.
Are any adjustments indicated by the assessment?
Do faculty think the course should be revised to better achieve the
objectives for the course?