G Eneral e Ducation /u Niversity C Ore A D

2008-2009 REPORT ON
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

G ENERAL E DUCATION /U NIVERSITY C ORE A D H OC A SSESSMENT C OMMITTEE
(GEAC)
SCOPE
This document fulfills the GEAC charge to “prepare a report for the GEC by a
reasonable and specified due date in the ’08-09 academic year. This report should
include an analysis and discussion of the results to help clarify the meaning of the
results so that the GEC can use the data to modify the program in positive ways.”
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND COMPLIANCE

A total of 130 courses were listed in the University Core curriculum during the 2008-
2009 academic year, of which 28 courses were exempt from assessment due either
to the course not being offered or by GEC granting exemption (Appendix A).
The assessment process requires that departments or programs submit a sequence

of three forms for each University Core course. Two of these forms (A and B) were
due by the time this report was finalized. Form A requested details of each course
assessment task and the rubric which would be used to evaluate student
performance. Approval of the task and rubric by GEAC was required prior to
implementation. Each Form A was initially read by two reviewers. If they disagreed
in their evaluation of the task and rubric, all five committee members evaluated and
approval was indicated by a majority. Approximately one third of all submissions
were initially rejected and required revision, typically because the task did not
match the SLO or the rubric would not be applicable to all possible responses. Of
the 102 courses requiring assessment, 2 (2.0%) failed to submit a Form A, 6 (5.9%)
were denied approval by the GEAC and no revision was submitted, 93 (91.2%) were
approved and 1 (1.0%) was submitted but never acted on by the GEAC (Appendix
A). The assessment status by SLO is presented in Appendix B.
Form B requested the numeric assessment results in addition to the department or

program’s analysis of the results. Two members of GEAC reviewed each of these
forms in order to evaluate and summarize department findings. Of the 102 courses
requiring assessment, 14 (13.7%) have taken no steps to complete Form B, 13
(12.7%) have completed a draft of Form B, while 75 (73.5%) have completed and
submitted Form B (Appendix A).
1
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND PROCESS
Assessment by SLO: GEC has defined 36 student learning outcomes (SLO)
grouped under four broad headings or goals (Table 1). There was wide variation in
the frequency with which each individual SLO was chosen for assessment (Appendix
C).
Table 1: Assessment by General Education Goal
#
Percent Percent of
Course Percent
# of of all
Goal s of
SLOs Primary assessment
Assessi all SLO's
SLO s
ng
27.8%
1 10 30 (10/36) 29.3% 32.3% (30/93)
13.9%
2 5 19 (5/36) 16.9% 20.4% (19/93)
25.0%
3 9 14 (9/36) 21.4% 15.1% (14/93)
33.3%
4 12 30 (12/36) 32.4% 32.3% (30/93)
Tota
ls: 36 93 100% 100% 100%
During the approval process for Form A submission, the GEAC interpreted each of
the SLOs as written, and required that assessment tasks appropriately address the
SLO associated with the task. As an example, consider SLO 1.1 which states
“Express ideas, facts, opinions and beliefs in ways that are relevant and appropriate
to the audience, context, purpose and genre.” The GEAC would not accept a task
that measured only a student’s ability to “Express ideas in ways that that are
relevant to the audience (or context or purpose or genre)” since all aspects of the
SLO are apparently integral to the outcome. The GEAC felt that this interpretation,
while strict, reflected the intent of the SLO. However, the GEAC recommends that
the GEC reexamine the SLO’s and consider rephrasing or restructuring the
outcomes to more precisely define the outcome desired.
FORM B Results: For each task, student learning was categorized as being
exemplary, proficient, competent , underdeveloped or unsatisfactory. The GEAC
believes that the distribution of results shown in Table 2 shows that the
assessment tasks, in the aggregate, established reasonable academic standards
with minimal grade inflation. The GEAC discourages any attempt to make more
detailed comparisons among individual assessments, because the assessments
differ by task, rubric, student population, delivery and timing.
Table 2: Assessment of Student Performance
2
Percent
# of
of
Category Studen
Student
ts
s
Exemplary 1741 18.6%
Proficient 2852 30.5%
Competent 2806 29.9%
Underdevelo
ped 1378 14.7%
Unsatisfactor
y 606 6.5%
Totals: 9383 100%
Form B also asked departments or programs to analyze the results of their

assessment. GEAC analyzed the Form B submissions using the categories shown in
Table 3. Note that GEAC made no attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the
assessments but simply analyzed the department or program’s own response. It
should be recognized that an indication of “did not indicate a proposed
improvement” may be viewed as uniformly negative, i.e. that the faculty did not
address the results of the assessment. However, there were several valid reasons
presented to repeat the assessment with no changes; for example a change in
prerequisites was in process or there was a desire to get two semesters of results
before making changes.
Table 3: Evaluation of Form B submissions
Department evaluation of results Cou %

nt
Department reported satisfaction with results 94 53%
Department reported dissatisfaction with results 20 11%
Unclear how the department views the results 64 36%
Analysis of results Cou %

nt
Analysis of results included detailed or specific 100 56%
observations
Analysis of results was broad and lacked specificity 52 29%
Analysis of results not included 26 15%
Proposed improvements Cou %

nt
Did not indicate a proposed improvement 52 29%
Proposed improvement(s) in task and/or rubric 16 9%
Proposed improvement(s) in pedagogy 86 48%
Proposed improvement(s) in pedagogy and task/rubric 11 6%
3
Assessment Process:
The GEAC felt that the current process yielded valuable results. We concur that it
is essential to have at least two individual readers for each Form A and Form B in
order to ensure uniformity of evaluation, and plan to continue this approach. Form
B, however, may require some revisions. Specifically we observed that:
1) We may need to better define “analysis” so that departments do not simply

reiterate results or make sweeping generalizations about the value of Gen
Ed;
2) Many departments do not clearly indicate whether or not they are satisfied
with the results;
3) The timing of Form B at times precluded the department’s ability to analyze

results because they wanted to address them at the beginning of the fall;
4) Some results are a reporting of individual opinions and not a synthesis of the
faculty involved.
4
Appendix A: Assessment Status by Course
Department Course Form A Form B

ANT Approve Validat
Sociology / Archaeology 101 d ed
ANT Approve Validat
ANT Approve Validat
ARC Approve Validat
ART Approve
Art 102 d Drafted
ART
Art 301 Denied -
BIO Approve Validat
Biology 103 d ed
BIO Approve Validat
Biology 105 d ed
Approve Validat
Modern Languages CHI 102 d ed
Approve
Modern Languages CHI 201 d -
Approve
Modern Languages CHI 202 d Drafted
CHM Approve Validat
Chemistry 103 d ed
Approve Validat
Computer Science C-S 101 d ed
Approve Validat
Computer Science C-S 120 d ed
CST Approve Validat
Communication Studies 110 d ed
ECO Approve Validat
Economics 110 d ed
ECO Approve Validat
Economics 120 d ed
ECO Approve Validat
Economics 336 d ed
EFN Approve
Educational Studies 205 d Drafted
ENG Approve Validat
English 110 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 200 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 201 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 202 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 203 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 204 d ed
English ENG Approve Validat
5
205 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 206 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 207 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 210 d ed
ENG Approve Validat
English 215 d ed
ENV
Chemistry 201 Drafted -
ERS
Ethnic And Racial Studies 100 Denied -
ESC Approve Validat
Geography Earth Science 101 d ed
ESC Approve Validat
ESS Approve
Exercise Sport Science 104 d Drafted
Approve Validat
Finance FIN 207 d ed
FRE Approve Validat
Modern Languages 102 d ed
FRE Approve Validat
FRE Approve Validat
FRE Approve Validat
GEO Approve Validat
GEO Approve
Geography Earth Science 110 d -
GEO Approve Validat
GEO
Geography Earth Science 202 Denied -
GER Approve Validat
GER Approve Validat
GER Approve Validat
GER Approve Validat
Approve Validat
History HIS 101 d ed
Approve Validat
Approve Validat
Approve Validat
Women, Gender & Sexuality HON Approve Validat
6
Studies 100 d ed
Women, Gender & Sexuality HON Approve Validat
Studies 205 d ed
HPR Approve
Exercise Sport Science 105 d Drafted
MIC Approve Validat
Microbiology 100 d ed
MLG Approve
Modern Languages 299 d Drafted
MTH Approve Validat
Mathematics 126 d ed
MTH Approve Validat
MTH Approve
Mathematics 150 d -
MTH Approve Validat
MTH Approve Validat
MTH Approve Validat
MTH Approve Validat
MUS Approve
Music 105 d Drafted
MUS
Music 110 Denied -
MUS Approve
Music 201 d -
MUS Approve
Music 204 d -
MUS Approve
Music 209 d Drafted
PHL Approve Validat
Philosophy 100 d ed
PHL Approve Validat
Philosophy 101 d ed
PHY Approve Validat
Physics 103 d ed
PHY Approve Validat
Physics 106 d ed
PHY Approve Validat
Physics 125 d ed
PHY Approve Validat
Physics 155 d ed
PHY Approve Validat
Physics 156 d ed
PHY Approve Validat
Physics 203 d ed
Political Science / Public POL Approve Validat
Administration 101 d ed
7
PSY Approve
Psychology 100 d Drafted
PSY
Psychology 280 Denied -
PSY
Psychology 285 - -
PSY Approve
Psychology 318 d Drafted
RUS Approve Validat
RUS Approve Validat
RUS Approve Validat
SAH Approve
Health Professions 105 d Drafted
SAH
Microbiology 307 Denied -
SOC Approve Validat
SOC Approve Validat
SOC Approve Validat
SOC Approve Validat
SPA Approve Validat
SPA Approve Validat
SPA Approve Validat
THA Approve
Theatre Arts 110 d Drafted
THA Approve
Theatre Arts 351 d Drafted
UWL Submitt
Psychology 100 ed -
Women, Gender & Sexuality W-S Approve Validat
Studies 100 d ed
Exempt Courses
Cours
Department e
APH
Art 102
Biology BIO 102
8
Biology BIO 107
CHM
Chemistry 100
ECO
Economics 202
ENG
English 208
ENG
English 220
Ethnic And Racial Studies ERS 110
History HIS 206
History HIS 220
History HIS 306
History HIS 336
HON
Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies 201
HON
HON
HON
HON
HON
HON
HON
HON
Philosophy PHL 230
Philosophy PHL 332
Political Science / Public Administration POL 234
Psychology PSY 107
RUS
Modern Languages 305
Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies W-S 210
Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies W-S 230
9
Appendix B: Assessment Status by SLO1
Form Form Studen

SLO A B ts
1.1 0 0 0
1.2 0 0 0
1.3 1 1 909
1.4 4 4 906
1.5 1 1 75
1.6 9 9 1520
1.7 5 4 712
1.8 10 9 758
1.9 0 0 0
1.1 0 0 0
2.1 0 0 0
2.2 7 0 0
2.3 11 11 929
2.4 1 1 41
2.5 0 0 0
3.1 2 2 1233
3.2 1 1 355
3.3 3 3 456
3.4 1 1 65
3.5 0 0 0
3.6 4 2 331
3.7 1 1 37
3.8 1 1 25
3.9 1 1 33
4.1 3 1 148
4.2 2 2 170
4.3 0 0 0
4.4 3 2 65
4.5 15 13 322
4.6 1 1 23
4.7 0 0 0
4.8 1 0 0
4.9 0 0 0
4.1 2 1 75
4.11 0 0 0
4.12 3 3 195
Total 93 75 9383
W HILE SOME COURSES SUBMITTED “FORM A” MORE THAN ONCE PRIOR TO GAINING GEAC APPROVAL , THE DATA PRESENTED TABLE
2 REFLECTS THE “FORM A” STATUS AS OF AUGUST 13, 2009.
10
Appendix C: Numbers of Courses Identifying an SLO as a Priority and
Assessing each SLO.
indicated as Assess % of
SLO #1 ed total % of total assessed
1.1 11 0 3 0
1.2 2 0 0 0
1.3 15 1 4 1
1.4 13 4 3 4
1.5 2 1 0 1
1.6 40 9 10 10
1.7 17 5 4 5
1.8 13 10 3 11
1.9 8 0 2 0
1.1
2 0 0
O 0
2.1 19 0 5 0
2.2 18 7 4 8
2.3 21 11 5 12
2.4 8 1 2 1
2.5 5 0 1 0
3.1 14 2 3 2
3.2 4 1 1 1
3.3 5 3 1 3
3.4 9 1 2 1
3.5 7 0 2 0
3.6 16 4 4 4
3.7 5 1 1 1
3.8 12 1 3 1
3.9 18 1 4 1
4.1 24 3 6 3
4.2 23 2 5 2
4.3 10 0 2 0
4.4 15 3 4 3
4.5 22 15 5 16
4.6 7 1 2 1
4.7 7 0 2 0
4.8 9 1 2 1
4.9 3 0 1 0
4.1
10 2 2
O 2
4.1
4 1 0
1 0
4.1
2 0 3
2 3
11
Total 420 93 100 100
12

G Eneral e Ducation /u Niversity C Ore A D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Eneral e Ducation /u Niversity C Ore A D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008-2009 REPORT ON

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND COMPLIANCE

The assessment process requires that departments or programs submit a sequence

Form B requested the numeric assessment results in addition to the department or

Table 1: Assessment by General Education Goal

Table 2: Assessment of Student Performance

Form B also asked departments or programs to analyze the results of their

Table 3: Evaluation of Form B submissions

Department evaluation of results Cou %

Analysis of results Cou %

Proposed improvements Cou %

1) We may need to better define “analysis” so that departments do not simply

3) The timing of Form B at times precluded the department’s ability to analyze

Department Course Form A Form B

Form Form Studen

You might also like