Sample Essays Commercial Properties by owy17991

VIEWS: 18 PAGES: 58

More Info
									  FACULTY DEVELOPMENT DAY
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT
                          Donna Sundre, EdD
Executive Director, Center for Assessment and Research Studies (CARS)
                   Professor of Graduate Psychology
                       James Madison University

                         Kara Siegert, PhD
        Director University Analysis, Reporting, & Assessment
                         Salisbury University

                         January 21, 2010
Purpose
To encourage a discussion of common assessment
misconceptions and description of the assessment process.
The ultimate goals for the day are to:
 provide assessment resources and best practices,

 describe the assessment process,

 discuss the role SU faculty will play in developing the
  assessment process at the institution, and
 collect feedback from faculty on assessment strategies
  that they recommend for collecting data on student
  achievement of General Education outcomes
    ITINERARY

9:00-9:15- Introductions & Itinerary
9:15-10:00- Assessment Misconceptions
10:00-10:45-Assessment Process & Assessment at SU
10:45-11:30-Data Collection Methods
11:30-12:00-Developing a Culture of Assessment
12:00-12:30-Working Lunch-Wicomico Room
12:30-1:00- Provost Allen
1:00-1:30- Questions & Introduction to Afternoon Activity
1:30-3:00- Roundtables
3:00-4:00- Faculty Feedback
CRIMES, MISDEMEANORS, AND
  FELONIES THAT PREVENT A
  CULTURE OF ASSESSMENT
Crime, Consequence, and Rehabilitation

   Crime: Practice (or non-practice) that results in the
    breakdown of the assessment process
   Consequence: How the crime affects your
    assessment program
   Rehabilitation: How to fix the offending behavior

   Of course there are different levels of offenses;
    we‟ve divided our examples into “misdemeanors”
    and “felonies”
Crime: Focus only on Weaknesses


Level: Misdemeanor I

Consequence: Faculty and administrators complain
  that assessment focuses on faults

Rehabilitation: Look specifically for strengths, report
  and publicize them; provide balanced feedback
Crime: Use of Unnecessary Jargon

   Level: Misdemeanor I

   Consequence: Rolling Eyes (i.e., a lack of interest and, worse,
    a lack of understanding of results)

   Rehabilitation: Know your audience. Present at their level.
    Complex analyses are often useful and appropriate, but offer
    these in an appendix, technical report, or talk to someone
    after the meeting.
Crime: GE and the assessment of GE goals and outcomes
are the responsibility of the faculty that teach GE only

  Level: Misdemeanor I

  Consequence: Faculty teaching in non-General
    Education courses will disengage with General
    Education conversations

  Rehabilitation: GE includes the most fundamental skills
    and is therefore taught across all courses, majors, and
    faculty. Faculty from all disciplines should play a role in
    developing GE assessments.
Crime: Using Course Grades as Evidence of
Student Learning
 Level: Misdemeanor II

 Consequence: Specific conclusions about student
   learning and achievement of student learning
   outcomes cannot be determined making it difficult
   to “close the loop”

 Rehabilitation: Develop assessment methods and
   evaluation strategies that are directly aligned with
   learning outcomes
Crime : Forgetting that All Research has
Limitations
Level:   Misdemeanor II

Consequence: Faculty will question whether results are
  indicative of students‟ true ability because
   Student aren‟t motivated
   Sample was too small
   Test/Instrument isn‟t perfect
   We need more analyses, data, etc


Rehabilitation: Use the assessment process and results to
  improve and inform the process. There will always be
  factors outside of our control. The key is appropriate
  interpretation of results; faculty should guide this.
Crime: Only Recommending Multiple-Choice
Tests for Assessment

Level: Misdemeanor III

Consequence: Skeptical faculty and administrators.
  They are more likely to question the validity of the
  data.

Rehabilitation: Use the Student Learning Goals and
  outcomes to determine the most appropriate method
  of data collection.
Crime: Surprise Stakeholders with Poor Results

Level: Misdemeanor III

Consequence: Defensive faculty and administrators. They are
  more likely to try to undermine assessment efforts.

Rehabilitation: Share poor results informally with stakeholders
  first. Have them brainstorm why results turned out so. Include
  them in presentations.
Crime: Assessment Reports Collect Dust

Level: Felony

Consequence: Faculty will consider assessment a
  bureaucratic exercise invented by administrators
  and government for the sole purpose of torturing
  them.

Rehabilitation: Make sure time and resources are
  allotted for faculty to consider and use assessment
  results.
Crime: Assessment Data Reported at the
Individual Faculty Level

Level: Felony (Capital Offense)

Consequence: „Audit‟ mode confirmed; faculty assume
  results are being use to assess them, not programs.
  Expect mass hysteria and mutiny.

Rehabilitation: There may be none. Administration will
  need to earn respect. Allow faculty to interpret
  findings and suggest improvements.
Things to Consider

   You already do assessment!
              basis for making inferences about student
     Systematic
     development and growth
 Think about why you go to work everyday—
  your purpose
 Do you see your students as your partners in
  learning?
     What feedback from your partners would be most
     beneficial for program improvement?
Final Questions

What assessment crimes have you seen committed here or
                   at other institutions?

 What assessment crimes are you most concerned might
                   take place at SU?

 How can we best assure that these misdemeanors and
          felonies are not committed at SU?

       Other Questions, Comments, or Concerns?
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
 Assoc. of American Colleges & Universities

“Almost all of the institutions surveyed (89 percent) are in some
 stage of either assessing or modifying their general education
 program. Assessment of cumulative learning outcomes in
 general education is, in fact, now becoming the norm.”

“Fifty-two percent of institutions are currently assessing
cumulative learning outcomes in general education beyond the
level of individual course grades, with another 42 percent
reporting that they are planning for assessment of cumulative
general education learning outcomes.”
                           AAC&U, 2009, Survey of 433 colleges and universities
      Stages of the Assessment Process

   1. Establishing Goals, Objectives, and/or
    Outcomes
   2. Selecting or Designing Methods
   3. Collecting Credible Information
   4. Analyzing and Maintaining Information
   5. Using Information for Teaching and Learning
    Improvement

*Regardless of the level of assessment required, whether it be
  a single learning objective, a course, a curriculum, or an
  entire program, the process is the same.
Stages of the Assessment Process


                        Establishing
                        Objectives/
                         Outcomes

   Using                                                Selecting/
Information                                             Designing
                      Continuous Cycle                 Instruments




        Analyzing/
        Maintaining                       Collecting
        Information                      Information
      Student Learning Goals
SKILLS                            KNOWLEDGE                            DISPOSITIONS
1. Critical Thinking              1. Breadth of Knowledge              1. Social Responsibility
2.Command of Language                 1a. Arts                         2. Humane Values
    2a. Reading                       1b. Literature                   3. Intellectual Curiosity
    2b. Writing                       1c. Civilization                 4. Aesthetic Values
    2c. Speaking                      1d. Global Issues                5. Wellness
    2d. Listening                     1e. 2nd Culture or Language
3. Quantitative Literacy              1f. Mathematics
4. Information Literacy               1g. Social and Behavioral Sciences
    4a. Library Use                   1h. Biological and Physical Sciences
    4b. Computer Technology Use   2. Interdependence among Disciplines
5. Interpersonal Communication
What are Student Learning Outcomes?

   OUTCOMES
     Specificknowledge, skills, or attitudes that students are
      expected to achieve through their college experience
     Describe observable behavior indicative of learning or
      development
     Student-centered!

     Aligned with the GE goals and the program‟s mission


      Specific Measurable Attainable Reasonable
                      Timely
    Curriculum Mapping Example

GENERAL EDUCATION
STUDENT LEARNING             RATING- OUTCOMES-                             GEN ED AREA(S)-
GOALS— General               Rate the level Specific knowledge or skills   General Education Sub-group
Education Student Learning   of importance students develop through        areas that provide courses for
Goals                        of each        their college experience       students to attain the identified
                             outcome                                       outcome
SKILLS-


1. Critical Thinking               3       Assess strengths and        IIA, IIB, IVB, IVC
                                           weaknesses of arguments in
                                           essays written for general
                                           audiences.
                                   1       Compose well-reasoned and IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IVC, V
                                           argued responses to
                                           arguments.
                                   4       Sythesize and apply          IA, IB
                                           informaton and ideas from
                                           readings across disciplines
     Selecting/Designing Instruments

         Direct measures are best
         Assess the extent to which students have mastered
         outcomes via:
                   Multiple-Choice Tests
                   Oral Presentations
                   On-Demand Essays
Typically use
some               Course Embedded Essays
combination        Portfolios
Locating Instruments

   Student Learning Goals and Outcomes/Objectives create
    the engine that drives assessment
   Search for commercial instruments ($$)
       ETS, Pearson, ACT, College Base, CLA
   Search for non-commercial instruments
   Check alignment with learning outcomes
   Check measurement properties-reliability and validity
Selecting or Designing Instruments
   Items and asks Must Match Objectives
     Create    your own blueprint
   What is the Purpose of Assessment?
     JMU   Example of QR and SR
       Start off trying to describe level of student learning
       Move toward describing growth
       Later establish faculty expectations for GE completers

   What Type of Instruments?
   Validating Inferences
                                                                            Item(s) Assessing
Cluster 3 - Learning Objectives                                                                                    Scores
                                                                            Objective
1. Describe the methods of inquiry that lead to mathematical truth and      2, 5, 9, 14, 18, 28, 38-41, 55-57      M = 9.25 (71% correct)
scientific knowledge and be able to distinguish science from pseudo-        (13 items; 19.7% of test)              SD = 1.77
science.                                                                                                           α = .35
                                                                          17, 20, 22, 27, 64-66 (7 items;          M = 4.61 (66% correct)
2. Use theories and models as unifying principles that help us understand 10.6% of test)
                                                                                                                   SD = 1.46
natural phenomena and make predictions.
                                                                                                                   α = .32
                                                                          1, 15, 16, 43-46 (7 items; 10.6% of M = 4.51 (64% correct)
3. Recognize the interdependence of applied research, basic research, and test)
                                                                                                              SD = 1.61
technology, and how they affect society.
                                                                                                              α = .49
                                                                            2, 19, 24-26, 29, 55-57                M = 6.47 (72% correct)
4. Illustrate the interdependence between developments in science and       (9 items; 13.6% of test)               SD = 1.29
social and ethical issues.
                                                                                                                   α = .23
                                                                            4, 7, 8, 10-13, 21, 30-33, 51-53, 58- M = 13.74 (65% correct)
5. Use graphical, symbolic, and numerical methods to analyze, organize,     63                                    SD = 3.06
and interpret natural phenomenon.                                           (21 items; 31.8% of test)             α = .59
                                                                          3, 34-37, 53, 60-63                      M = 5.93 (59% correct)
6. Discriminate between association and causation, and identify the types (10 items; 15.2% of test)
                                                                                                                   SD = 1.77
of evidence used to establish causation
                                                                                                                   α = .44
                                                                            5, 6, 9-13, 18, 23, 28, 41, 42, 47-50, M = 15.10 (72% correct)
7. Formulate hypotheses, identify relevant variables, and design            54, 59, 60, 62, 63                     SD = 2.74
experiments to test hypotheses.                                             (21 items; 31.8% of test)              α = .55
                                                                            2, 14, 24-26, 29, 38-40, 60-63         M = 7.96 (61% correct)
8. Evaluate the credibility, use, and misuse of scientific and mathematical (13 items; 19.7% of test)
                                                                                                                   SD = 1.77
information in scientific developments and public-policy issues.
                                                                                                                   α = .29
                                                                            3, 4, 7, 8, 10-13, 21, 30-37, 51-53,   M = 17.58 (68% correct)
Quantitative Reasoning                                                      58-63                                  SD = 3.63
                                                                            (26 items; 39.4% of test)              α = .65
                                                                                                                   M = 46.59 (70% correct)
Total Test                                                                  1-66                                   SD = 7.34
                                                                                                                   α = .78
Collecting Information
     Start with an Important Question-
       This   will guide your data collection
     Cross sectional design- to begin
     Pre- and post-test- later
       Very    powerful; faculty love this design
     Sampling vs. census data collection
       Methodology     will dictate—costs, resources
     Course embedded
       Where     are the „natural homes‟ for assessment?
Analyzing/Maintaining Information
   Reliability has to come first
   Validation of inferences is a natural partner for any
    assessment question:
     Do   course grades correlate with performances?
     Can we show evidence of course impact?
     Do students that have completed GE requirements
      perform better than entering students?
     Are there differences by SU, AP or transfer credits?
     Do students achieve faculty expectations?
     Is there value-added?
Creating and Using Information
   You need an infrastructure for
     Sound  data collection
     Interpreting and creating good reports
       Surprising results
       Identifying strengths and weaknesses
     Sharing   results and improving processes
   How can good data be used?
     Improving  assessment process and instruments
     Improving teaching & learning
     Academic program review
     Strategic planning & budgeting
Fulton School Example: History
   Used learning goals to develop a rubric that is used
    to evaluate research papers
   Rubric evaluates research, analytical and
    communication abilities, in general, and as they
    relate to the study of history in particular.
   Also assisted in providing essays for GE assessment
    with the English department
Perdue School Example
   Developed six to seven learning goals for both its
    undergraduate and graduate programs.
       Each goal has one or more measurable objectives.
       As of Fall 2009, methods have been developed for assessing
        each learning goal.
       Team approach-each learning outcome assessed by faculty
        members representing each discipline.
   Based on data collection, the Perdue School has:
       made changes to the Common Body of Knowledge Exam
       expanded professional development opportunities to include a 1
        credit junior year course (BUAD 300) and a non-credit senior
        year assessment (BUAD 400) to reinforce our learning goals.
Henson School Example
   Recent Assessment and Evaluation Activities with the
    Henson School Science General Education
    Requirements
     2-IVA-Labs Courses
     1-IVA or IVB Course (Non-lab) or IVC (Math or COSC)

   Routine assessment for accredited programs (Nursing,
    Respiratory Care, and Medical Lab Sciences)
Seidel School Example
   Specialty Program Area Annual Report
     What does data show?
     What actions were taken based on this data?

     How will assessment system change?

   These reports have led to changes in
     Curriculum-classroom   management has been added to
      SCED programs
     Evaluation instruments-modified to better align with
      program standards
Other assessment examples from your programs that
              you would like to share?



 Are any of you stuck at a particular phase in the
                assessment process?
 SALISBURY UNIVERSITY
ASSESSMENT PROGRESS
SU‟s Assessment Progress
     University Academic Assessment Committee
         Established in 2002
     Establishment of the Student Learning Goals
         2000, General Education Task Force
         2009-Present, Alignment with General Education Courses
     Development of Student Learning Outcomes
         June 2009-Present
     General Education Assessment
         Academic Profile/MAPP/Proficiency Profile-2005
         Critical thinking, written communication, information literacy
         ALEKS
     Academic Program Review
         Pilot revisions AY 2009-10
Academic Profile/MAPP/Proficiency
Profile 2005
                           PROFICIENCY CLASSIFICATION
 SKILL DIMENSION           PROFICIENT                  MARGINAL                     NOT PROFICIENT
 Reading Level 1           70% (66%)                   21% (20%)                    8% (13%)
 Reading Level 2           41% (33%)                   21% (22%)                    38%(45%)
 Critical Thinking         7% (4%)                     26% (13%)                    67% (83%)
 Writing Level 1           80% (68%)                   16% (23%)                    4% (9%)
 Writing Level 2           30% (19%)                   45% (38%)                    25% (43%)
 Writing Level 3           12% (8%)                    36% (28%)                    52% (64%)
 Math Level 1              75% (56%)                   21% (28%)                    3% (16%)
 Math Level 2              48% (27%)                   25% (30%)                    27% (43%)
 Math Level 3              17% (6%)                    22% (16%)                    61% (78%)

   *Values in parentheses represent average % of test-takers from other Master’s Level I & II institutions.
Self Study Assessment Results-2006
                                    Direct measures              Indirect measures
  Oral / written         English 101 and 102 – scoring        Alumni survey
  communication          rubric/department assessment
                         goals; assessments in individual     NSSE
                         courses
  Scientific and         ETS (pilot project); some            Alumni survey
  quantitative reasoning department assessment goals;
                         assessments in individual courses    NSSE
  Technological uses in Departmental assessments for          Alumni survey
  the major              majors; assessments in individual
                         courses
  Information literacy   Dept assessment goals; individual    Alumni survey: NSSE
                         course assessments

  Critical analysis and   ETS (pilot project); some           Alumni survey
  reasoning               department assessment goals
                                                              NSSE
                          Assessments in individual courses
                                                              CIRP
APR Proposed Changes: 2009-10
   Removal of General Education analysis
   Removal of peer comparison
   Data pre-populated in tables
   Clarification & Training
   Electronic creation and submission
   Rubric-based feedback provided to programs
   Reviewing assessment progress periodically
     October review
     3-year Assessment Plan & Summary Preview

   Fulton School curriculum reform APR guidelines
Academic Program Review
PART I- Assessment Plan and Summary
     Program Description
     Student Learning Goals, Outcomes, and/or Objectives
     Assessment Method(s)
     Data Results and Use
     Assessment Action Plan
PART II- Program Review and Action Plan
     Internal Review and Qualitative Analysis
         Summary
         Program Curriculum and Advising
         Resources
     External Review Summary
     Recommendations Action Plan
METHODS OF DATA
  COLLECTION
    Not Just Any Data Will Do…

   If we want faculty to pay attention to the results, we
    need credible evidence
   To obtain credible evidence:
     We need a representative sample or a census
     We need good instrumentation
       The tasks demanded must represent the content domain
       Reliability and validity

     We   need students who are motivated to perform
Prerequisites for Quality Assessment

   We must have three important components
       Excellence in sampling of students
           Either large, representative student samples or a census

       Sound assessment instrumentation
           Psychometrically sound assessment methods that map to the domain

           Instruments and methods that faculty find meaningful

       Motivated students to participate in assessment activities
           Can we tell if students are motivated?

           Can we influence examinee motivation?
Data Collection Methods
   Course-Embedded
       Grand Valley State University
   Portfolios
     College of William and Mary
     George Mason University
   Assessment Days
     St. Mary‟s University
     Christopher Newport University
     James Madison University
   Assessment Season
       Truman State University
Course-Embedded
   Courses serve as data collection venue
   Focused assignments are integral to courses;
    evaluated as part of course grade using common
    scoring procedure
                ADVANTAGES                             DISADVANTAGES
    Requires no extra “collection” period   Requires course time—intrusive, hard to
                                            implement well
    Increased student motivation            Requires sound sampling plan
    Reduced costs                           Requires „common‟ assignment and
                                            scoring across multiple courses
    Faculty-driven                          Requires additional faculty scoring
Portfolios
   Student developed vs. Instructor compiled
   Contain samples that demonstrate attainment of
    specific GE goals and outcomes
   Rubric-based evaluation of samples
               ADVANTAGES                           DISADVANTAGES

    Can be used to evaluate improvement   Scoring can be time consuming
    Can evaluate more complex, process-   Evaluation method must be explicitly
    oriented skills                       stated to ensure proper evidence is
                                          provided
    Assessment Days
   Two institution-wide Assessment Days
        Fall (August): Incoming freshmen tested at orientation
        Spring (February): Students with 45-70 credits ; typically the sophomore year
   Classes are cancelled on this day
   All students are required to participate, else course registration is blocked
   Students are randomly assigned to take a particular series of instruments
   JMU just completed its 23rd Spring Assessment Day
   Spring Day is used by many majors to collect data on graduating seniors

                     ADVANTAGES                               DISADVANTAGES
         Data collection requires no course time   Consider examinee motivation
         Makes assessment an institution-wide      Requires institutional commitment;
         commitment; improves greatly over time    faculty will react poorly at first
         Creates a culture of assessment           Additional costs for proctors or faculty
Assessment Season
   2-4 week testing window where instruments are
    offered for completion
   Students assigned to certain tests based on a
    sampling approach

                 ADVANTAGES                            DISADVANTAGES
      No course time required                Motivation needs to be examined
      Allows for an extended evaluation      Additional cost to proctor exams
      period
      Makes assessment an institution-wide   Requires students to attend session
      commitment                             outside of classroom time
DEVELOPING A CULTURE OF
      ASSESSMENT
    The Assessment Culture at JMU
JMU requires students to take a series of student outcomes
assessments prior to their graduation. These assessments are held
at four stages of students’ academic careers:

   as entering first-year students
   at the mid-undergraduate point when they have earned 45 to 70 credit
    hours, typically the sophomore year
   as graduating seniors in their academic major(s)
   Students will also complete an alumni survey after graduation


                                 -JMU Undergraduate Catalog
The Assessment Culture at JMU

   Long-standing and pervasive expectation at JMU
    that assessment findings will guide decision-
    making.
     Annual  reports, Assessment Progress Templates,
      program change proposals, and all academic
      program review self-study documents all require
      substantial descriptions of how Assessment guides
      decision-making
   The Center for Assessment and Research Studies
    (CARS) is the largest higher education assessment
    center in the US
         10 Faculty, 3 Support Staff, and about 15
     with
      Graduate Assistants at the Masters and PhD level
The Assessment Culture at JMU

   CARS supports all general education assessment
   CARS facilitates all JMU alumni surveys
   CARS supports assessment for every academic
    program
     Undergraduate   and Graduate
   CARS supports assessment for the Division of
    Student Affairs
   All programs must collect and report on
    assessment data annually
   Academic Program Reviews are scheduled
     Every 6 years for ALL academic degree programs
     Every 5 years for General Education „clusters‟
    How do we develop a culture at SU?
    Pathway for Institution-Wide Assessment Development


   Vision            High            Commitment        Resources         Structure          Integration
                  Standards


                                        Unswerving        Time and          Institutional   Integration at all
How assessment
                                     commitment that      monetary      committees with       stages to help
 can help meet     Measure well
                                        withstands     resources are       faculty and       build a “culture
  the mission &    what matters,
                                         economic      investments to   administrators to    of evidence” to
what we want to   not what is easy
                                       challenges &    ensure student    inform process,         inform &
  achieve with        to count.
                                        changes in      learning and       share, & use         strengthen
   assessment.
                                        leadership      development           findings.          decisions
LUNCH
   PROVOST
DR. DIANE ALLEN
GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES WORK GROUPS:

   1.  CRITICAL THINKING
   2. COMMAND OF LANGUAGE-WRITING
   3. QUANTITATIVE LITERACY
   4. INFORMATION LITERACY- ACCESS INFORMATION
   EFFICIENTLY, EVALUATE IT CRITICALLY, AND USE IT
   APPROPRIATELY
   5. INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
What‟s Next?
1.   Provide draft GE outcomes to department chairs
     and request feedback-February 2010
2.   Hold open faculty meeting to request feedback on
     the draft GE outcomes-March/April 2010
3.   Present Faculty Senate with draft outcomes and
     finalize outcomes for a vote-April 2010
4.   Use final GE outcomes & information provided at
     the FDD roundtables to inform UAAC on the
     development of an institution-wide GE assessment
     process-Draft Plan-Fall 2010

								
To top