Development of Student Learning Outcomes for GE: lessons from a collaborative approach

Development of Student Learning Outcomes for GE: lessons from a collaborative approach

A Lawson General Education in California Conference, CSU Fullerton May 4, 2010

Campus profile:• Enrollment of 21,500• 1,100 full and part-time faculty (591 T/TT)• ≈55% transfers


GE Governance:• GE committee (senate sub-committee) is

responsible for:– Review of new GE course proposals– Implementing and ensuring compliance with GE

policy (syllabi review)– Recommending changes in GE policy


Lower Division Upper Division

Area A Communication/Critical thinking

A1-Oral Communication

A2-Written Communication

A3-Critical Thinking

Area B Natural Sciences

B1-Physical Science IB - Integrative SciencesB2-Life Science

B4-Quantitative Reasoning

Area C Arts and Humanities

C1-Arts IC - Integrative Arts and Humanities

C2-Humanities

C1 or C2

Area DSocial Sciences

D1-American History ID Integrative Social SciencesD2 –American GovernmentMI Multicultural / International

D3-Social Science

Area ELifelong Learning

E-Lifelong Learning

Units 39 units 12 units 51 total units

CSU Fresno GE Pattern

CSU Fresno GE pattern:• Iterative writing across the curriculum


History of GE Outcomes at Fresno State:• A set of learning outcomes was passed in 2003– Written by one faculty member– 97 outcomes over 16 areas (1-10/area)


Some were not measureable:

“Students deal with human social, political, and economic institutions and behavior and their historical background”Or“Students will be prepared to function in an international, multicultural society”


Some were really course intentions:“Students will prepare at least six written

presentations which receive oral or written critiques by the instructor.”

or“Students will study the influence of major

social, cultural, economic and political forces on societal behavior and institutions”


AAC&U, General Education and Assessment: Engaging Critical Questions, Fostering Critical Learning, Miami Fl Mar 1-3, 2007


Premise:• “In order to have a meaningful assessment of

the GE program we need to start with a set of Student Learning Outcomes for each area that faculty truly embrace, implement and assess.”


Fall 2007 workshops• Faculty were invited to workshops to write outcomes

by area (16 total).• Workshops led by individual GE Committee members–Major obstacles:• Lack of knowledge of the GE program• Lack of knowledge of the requirements of EO 595• Even committee members didn’t always have a

firm grasp on material• Without a starting point, they lacked focus


Spring 2008• Brought A1, A2 & A3 to meet with GE

committee to work on outcomes– Worked for some areas (A2), while not others (A3)– Generally not enough time in a 2 hr meeting to

have meaningful discussion


EO 1033 June 18, 2008

(requires outcomes based on LEAP framework)


LEAP Framework: • Knowledge of human cultures and the physical

and natural world• Intellectual and practical skills• Personal and social responsibility• Integrative learning


Fall 2008 – Formation of GE Student Learning Outcomes Taskforce• Office of the Provost committed 9 WTU release

time for 3 faculty (20% time / member)• Recommendations were sought from Deans and

GEC Chair interviewed candidates– Chair of GEC (College of Agricultural Sciences)– One Faculty from History (College of Social Sciences)– One Faculty from Linguistics (College of Arts and

Humanities)


Spring 2009 – Task Force Charged with:

• Work with faculty to develop learning outcomes for each area that fit within Leap Framework


Spring 2009 – Task Force Charged With:

• Suggest a plan for assessing these outcomes


The Process:• Task force members wrote a first draft of

outcomes which reflected EO 1033 and campus program description

• Generally limited to 3 outcomes per area• Drafted the first area together, subsequent

areas separately • 2 hr meetings weekly


Workshops:• 2 hour workshops in each major area (A, B, C, D, E & MI)• Invited:– All faculty who had taught in the area (past 2 yrs)– All department chairs with courses in the area

• Draft of outcomes went out with invitation along with EO1033, program description and LEAP framework

• Invitation stressed importance of SLOs derived from the faculty as well as eventuality of assesment

• Comments via email were welcomed


Workshops:• At least two taskforce members and usually

Dean of Undergraduate Studies attended each workshop

• Edits and suggestions were projected on screen


Revisions:• Outcomes from workshop were distributed to

same list of GE faculty with a three week comment period

• Comments were reviewed and incorporated • Final draft was distributed to all faculty with

another two week comment period


Approval Process:• General Education Committee approved final

draft in May 2009.• Executive Committee reviewed in fall 2009

with a few minor edits• Academic Senate reviewed on March 8 and 22

with approved with one edit


What Contributed to Our Success :• Administration placed resources behind the effort• EO 1033• A leadership team with knowledge of assessment• Providing faculty with a draft as a starting point• Transparency and openness to all input • Stressing need for this to come from the faculty

who are experts in the area


Assessment Plan:• Centralized vs localized (dept level) models• Discussed with Institutional Research &

campus learning and assessment team


Departments Will Provide:• The assignment (s) or piece(s) of student work to

be assessed• The rubric or assessment method to be used to

measure the outcome • The metric used to asses if a student has met the

outcome• A schedule for assessing each outcome (minimum

of one learning outcome per year per course)


Reporting:• Departments will provide a summary of

assessment results as well as changes made as a result of assessment data in annual reports

• IRAP will compile and analyze data for GEC• GEC will asses program based on aggregate

data


Future of GEC• Move away from indirect compliance

measures like syllabi review• Move toward examining assessment data• Evidence of how courses will meet outcomes

and assessment plans will be required for new course approval


Development of Student Learning Outcomes for GE: lessons from a collaborative approach

Documents

Transcript of Development of Student Learning Outcomes for GE: lessons from a collaborative approach