Goals and Outcomes of General Education

Goals and Outcomes of General Education

1. The ability to communicate both in writing and orally



2. The skills required to gather, analyze, document and integrate information



3. An understanding of historical processes and cultural differences



4. An understanding of aesthetic and literary sensitivity



5. An understanding of the modes of thought, concerns and methodologies of the fine arts, the humanities, the social and behavioral sciences, and the natural sciences



6. A the ability to use quantitative methods in the natural, social and behavioral sciences

For an example of how gen ed goals may relate to course outcomes see the web site for the University of Arizona: http://w3.arizona.edu/~uge/gened/outcomes.htm

NEIU's General Education Assessment Plan

General Education Program
ASSESSMENT PLAN SUMMARY
2005

The General Education Program Assessment Plan was developed by the General Education Committee in consultation with faculty and academic leaders. The plan was adopted and approved by the Faculty Council on Academic Affairs and the Faculty Senate.

The plan includes both direct and indirect forms of assessment taken over several points in time. The direct forms of assessment are of two types: (a) embedded assessment approaches and (b) standardized testing. In using embedded assessment, the plan calls for collecting a sample of student papers from entering students and a sample of papers from students enrolled in upper level courses, typically 300 level. Selected faculty who have undergone an orientation into the use of rubrics and a norming process will score the papers using rubrics designed for the use of assessment of NEIU's Gen Ed goals. Faculty participating in the scoring process will receive additional compensation from the university's assessment budget. Secondly, a sample of students enrolled in upper level courses will also participate in a standardized testing program to assess gen ed goals. These instruments will be administered during class time.

Indirect forms of assessment include use of questionnaires including CIRP, the NSSE, and CRS or SBG (the latter are alumni surveys). The general education committee has selected items in each of these instruments that will help to support the assessment of gen ed goals. In addition to student exit interviews already conducted through selected departments, additional interviews and focus groups with external constituencies are planned as part of the assessment process.

General Education Assessment will be conducted on a yearly basis. One year special attention using embedded approaches will be used to assess three Gen Ed goals, the following year the remaining goals will be assessed using embedded approaches. To establish baseline results, the standardized testing program will be used every year for the first 3 year, then will be used in alternating years. Similarly, indirect forms of assessment will be used every year, then will be used in alternating years.

Results will be shared with faculty, academic leaders, students and external constituencies as appropriate on a yearly basis. The General Education Committee will report findings and resulting actions to the FCAA and the Faculty Senate.

For more information, click onto the link beside: Final Approval, General Education Assessment Plan

Rubrics

The most common format of embedded assessment relies on writing assignments (a short paper, an essay test, etc.) that can be analyzed for underlying general skills, not just for the purpose for which they were originally assigned in class. For example, NEIU’s General Education Program goals require students to be able to:

1. Communicate effectively in writing (Goal 1)
2. Use information gathering and analyzing skills (i.e., critical thinking) (Goal 2)

These are broad skills that should be visible in a variety of written products students produce across many of their Gen-Ed courses. The General Education Committee has drafted some rubrics it proposes for the assessment of GenEd goals 1 and 2. The three rubrics we are presenting are designed to probe into sub-skills that can reasonably be assumed to constitute writing and critical thinking. Increasingly more universities (e.g., the SUNY system, universities across the Washington State system, the Maricopa Community College system, the Virginia Community College system, the University of Cincinnati, Cal State Fresno, Bowling Green State College, Alverno College, to name just a few) are taking the approach of using rubrics to probe into broad skills and abilities that programs in General Education (but also the major) intend to foster in their students.

The three attached rubrics originate from different universities.

The Writing Rubric: Most of it comes from a rubric presented by Dr. Barbara Walvoord, an English professor and faculty developer at the University of Cincinnati and more recently at Notre Dame University. She has a national reputation as an expert in assessment; her 1998 book “Effective Grading” has been a best-seller that describes in great detail how to use and create rubrics, among other things.

The Critical Thinking Rubric: We are actually attaching two versions of this rubric: a short and a long version. The criteria for the short version were developed at Washington State University, where the rubric has been used extensively by more than 260 faculty since 1999 in the sciences, the arts, humanities, and social sciences (for more information check the website at: http://wsuctproject.wsu.edu). Additional criteria for the long version were developed by Dr. Roger Gilman and Dr. John Casey (Philosophy), who also rewrote the performance level descriptions of both versions.

While rubrics for such broad skill domains can be applied to many different assignments that were created for course-specific purposes, it is clear that they are most effective when instructors keep the dimensions of the rubrics in mind as they create a certain assignment for their class. We hope that as we refine the rubrics over the coming years—with the ongoing input from those who use them—faculty members will see their value as tools to reinforce the same basic skills across many courses and disciplines in the Gen-Ed Curriculum. Rubrics can be used as both an assessment and a teaching tool. If faculty use them to clarify their expectations to their students, the cohesion of the Gen-Ed Program can only improve.

Please send your comments, preferences, and suggestions by August 6, 2004 to:

Bonnie Chauncey
Vice-chair/Secretary
General Education Committee
Library 117-B
E-mail: B-Chauncey@neiu.edu

General Education Rubric: Writing

General Education Rubric: Critical Thinking (long version)

General Education Rubric: Critical Thinking (short version)

Other Assessment Strategies

Southern Illinois University-Carbondale

Strategies used at SIU-C include:

course portfolios—dossiers of 33 core courses are reviewed to assess whether or not they meet the 6 goals for general education

longitudinal surveys—the freshman class is surveyed as well as alumni. The surveys include gen ed items that assess reading and writing goals across the curriculum

examination of enrollment and grade point averages by course, and

a faculty survey that solicits their opinions about factors that affect student learning at their institution

The University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign

Two main strategies were used to assess gen ed. These were (a) unit specific measures and (b) existing institution-wide measures or standardized measures.

Unit-specific measures included student surveys and exit interviews, and alumni and employer surveys. UIUC also reported the use of course-embedded assessment, frequently involving satisfactory completion of core courses; use of information gathered from capstone courses to demonstrate competences of a set of outcomes deemed important for a particular unit.

Selective use of items derived from existing standardized measures administered by the university, for example items from the Chancellor’s Senior Survey.

Truman State University

Truman assesses its general education goals through a senior portfolio project administered across a selected group of liberal arts and sciences courses. For more information about this program, actual portfolio prompts and procedures, click onto
the web site at: http://www.truman.edu/pages/179.asp

The University of Missouri-Rolla

To ensure transferability of courses within the state-wide system of higher education, Missouri provides a central site, listing all of the institutions and their general education requirements as well as how these are assessed. Click on the following link to see “a work in progress” of gen ed goals mapped to particular assessment strategies:

http://cstl.semo.edu/gesc/status_reports/UMR42Block_Status_Rpt.htm

Kansas State University

KSU has articulated its general education goals and has specified several assessment strategies to learn more about these which include the use of student interviews and portfolios. However, there have been some problems associated with the use of student portfolios to assess writing skills. For a frank discussion written by faculty see report “Assessing the Writing of Students in General Education at Kansas State University,” which also includes suggestions to improve the process. To learn more about KSU’s experience click on to their web site at

http://www.k-state.edu/apr/UGEAssessment/index.htm