Assessment of General Education Programs by 91R80e

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 20

									Assessment of General
Education Programs

     John Thornell
     Jay Stubblefield
     North Carolina Wesleyan
     College
Presentation Format


1.   Review of SACS CS 3.5.1
2.   Challenges
3.   Response Strategies
4.   Application
1. Review of SACS CS 3.5.1


The institution identifies college-level
  general education competencies and
  the extent to which graduates have
  attained them. (College-level
  competencies)
2. Challenges:

A.   Achieving SACS Compliance
B.   Gaining Buy-In from the Campus
C.   Managing the Ambiguity of “General
     Education” Terminology
D.   Reconciling Value-Based Language
     of Gen Ed with the Specific Language
     of Assessment
A. Achieving Compliance

According to Dr. David Carter, CS 3.5.1
 Is #2 of top 10 areas of non-
  compliance in off-site reviews

   Is one on which 72% of Track 2006-B
    and 2007-A institutions were found
    non-compliant
A. Achieving Compliance Cont.

   Is one on which 42% of those same
    schools are found non-compliant
    during on-site reviews

   Is one of 5 most frequent on-site items
    with recommendations
A. Achieving Compliance Cont.

   Is the #1 Item Requiring Commission
    Monitoring

   Is most often a problem due to
    “Insufficient Documentation”
A. Achieving Compliance Cont.

Off-Site reviewers cite institutions for:
 Restating core requirements rather than
   “providing evidence that […] competencies
   are actually assessed” and
 Failing to provide “evidence […] to show that
   assessments have occurred and students
   achieve [gen. ed] competencies.”
B. Gaining Buy-In



“Values and realities may have difficulty
  coexisting on a college campus.”
  (Boorstein and Knapp, 2005)
B. Gaining Buy-In Cont.


“Liberal arts […] are not easily
   measurable. […] Understandably,
   liberal arts faculty are often unable or
   unwilling to conceptualize their
   courses in terms of measurable
   outcomes rather than content to be
   covered.” (Boorstein and Knapp, 2005)
B. Gaining Buy-In Cont.


“assessment of general education
  attributes, such as aesthetic
  awareness, is not indescribable but
  […] merely not hitched up to
  appropriate assignments.” (Eder,
  2004)
B. Gaining Buy-In Cont.


“Learning in the liberal arts can be
  enhanced if it occurs within a
  framework that permits measurement
  of the learning.” (Boorstein and Knapp,
  2005)
C. Managing Ambiguity



“General education is a slippery term.”
  (Walvoord, 2004)
C. Managing Ambiguity Cont.


“General education refers to that part of a
  student's education that contributes to
  the breadth of knowledge needed to
  be a more effective citizen of a
  complex and culturally diverse world.”
  (Saginaw Valley State)
C. Managing Ambiguity Cont.


“General education refers to subject
  matter that is foundational in nature
  and contains general content that may
  apply to all disciplines of study.”
  (Minnesota State College, Southeast
  Technical)
D. Reconciling Language


General Education assessment has
  “lagged behind” that of specific
  disciplines because its terminology has
  “acquired an aura of being ineffable
  […]” (Eder, 2004)
D. Reconciling Language Cont.


Too often, institutions list general
  education goals that describe what we
  want students to be rather than what
  we want them to be able to do.
3. Response Strategies

A.   Shift the Focus from Abstract Ideas to
     Specific “Student Products”

B.   Perform an Assessment Audit

C.   Formulate Assessment-Friendly
     Goals
3. Response Strategies Cont.

D.   Build a General Education Matrix

E.   Select a General Education Program
     Coordinator

F.   Close the Loop on General Education
     Assessment
4. Application


      Review Sample Statements of
      General Education Goals

								
To top