GE PROGRAM GE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AT CSU, ASSESSMENT AT CSU, CHICO: A Way ForwardCHICO: A Way Forward

PROCESS, RESULTS, PROCESS, RESULTS,

LESSONS LEARNEDLESSONS LEARNED

CHRIS FOSEN, RUTH GUZLEY, WILLIAM LOKER, CHRIS FOSEN, RUTH GUZLEY, WILLIAM LOKER, MARGARET OWENSMARGARET OWENS

PRESENTED AT AAC&U, 3/3/07PRESENTED AT AAC&U, 3/3/07

GE at CSU, Chico

Constraints: State, System and Campus Core, Breadth, Upper Division Themes, 48 units Core: Oral Communication, Writing, Critical

Thinking and Quantitative Reasoning (12 units) Breadth: Sciences (6), Humanities (9), Social

Sciences (9), Life-long Learning (3) UDT: Cross-disciplinary view of topic areas (9) About 285 courses in GE curriculum

GE ASSESSMENT: Rationale, Structure and Process

Need for Program (vs. course) assessment Mandate for Program assessment (EM-99-05,

MOU) Existing structures: GEAC, AURA Goals of GE Program assessment:

Participatory Outcomes based Unobtrusive (workload, budget, etc)

Meaningful, Manageable, Sustainable

Coordinating Committee: AURA Chair, GEAC Chair, Dean Undergraduate Studies

GEACGeneral Education Advisory Committee

AURAAll University Responsibilityfor Assessment Committee

Task Force 1 (Writing), 2 (Oral Communication), 3 (Quantitative reasoning). Each Task Force has an AURA member, GEAC member, and an additional faculty member.

Provost

Organizational Structure for GE Assessment, 05-06

Who did What? Task Force Composition

Task Force 1: Oral Communication (Phyllis Fernlund, AURA) Ruth Guzley, CMST, AURA, Chair Mitchell Johns, AGRI, GEAC Susan Avanzino, CMST

Task Force 2: Written Communication (Bill Loker, Dean UED) Chris Fosen, ENGL, GEAC, Chair Sarah Blackstone, Dean HFA, AURA Sara Trechter, ENGL

Task Force 3: Quantitative Reasoning (Don Alger, GEAC) Margaret Owens, Assoc. Dean NS, AURA, Chair Russ Mills, CIVL, GEAC Jack Ladwig, MATH

What did we do?

Consult existing documents for guidance Consult faculty who teach GE to derive Student

Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Consult faculty on creation of rubrics to measure

SLOs Identify courses where SLOs are evidenced Identify assignments where SLOs could be

measured

Writing Writing AssessmentAssessmentFrom SLOs to Results ….From SLOs to Results ….

Chris FosenChris Fosen

First Steps

Contacted faculty from a variety of areas and levels of GE

GE writing requirement—1500 words Derived SLOs from Executive

Memorandum that governs GE Refined SLOs with help from GE

faculty

Student Learning Outcomes, GE Writing Assessment

CONTENT 1. Write texts that question, investigate and draw well-reasoned conclusions about ideas and issues based on the reading and analysis of sources appropriate to the subject and assignment.

ORGANIZATION & ARGUMENTATION 2. Use organizational patterns (sequences of paragraphs and ideas), evidentiary support, and stylistic and word choices appropriate to the discipline and assignment.

GRAMMAR & OTHER SURFACE FEATURES 3. Write papers that demonstrate proficiency in terms of grammar, syntax, punctuation and spelling, and which use a citation style consistent with the assignment and discipline.

Scoring Level Content Organization & Argumentation

Grammar & Surface Features

3 Accomplished Writing shows evidence of deep engagement with intellectual material of course/discipline, imagination, and creativity. Few or no errors of fact or interpretation. Writing could be used as a model of how to fulfill the assignment.

Writing flows smoothly from one idea to another. The reader can easily follow the claims and examples used to support the ideas expressed. The writer’s decisions about focus and organization facilitate reading.

Writing is essentially error-free in terms of mechanics. Models the style and formatting appropriate to the assignment. Citation style clear and consistently applied.

2 Competent Content of text fulfills the assignment. Writing demonstrates engagement with intellectual and/or creative material of the course/discipline. Few errors of fact or interpretation

Sequencing of ideas and transitions makes the writer’s points accessible. Examples developed and claims supported in most cases. The purpose and focus of the writing are clear, organization and tone achieve the purpose of the assignment.

Minor errors, but paper follows normal conventions of spelling and grammar throughout. Appropriate conventions for style and format are used consistently. Sources documented.

1 Beginning Requirements of the assignment have not been fulfilled. Little/no evidence of engagement with material of the course/discipline. The paper reveals numerous errors of fact or interpretation.

Writing lacks transitions and/or sequencing of ideas, making reading and understanding difficult. Examples and/or claims are weak or missing in many cases.

Numerous errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure, other writing conventions that interfere with comprehension. Does not follow appropriate style and/or format. Source documentation is incomplete.

Methodological Issues

Gathering syllabi from willing participants Working with course faculty to identify appropriate

assignments (embedded assessment) Using STEPS© to manage the process Recruiting, calibrating, and training readers for work

in STEPS Matching up areas of reader expertise with the

papers we collected

Brief Introduction to STEPS

STEPS: Student Tracking, Evaluation and Portfolio System

Student-built, faculty-led system Built on an Oracle database

>100,000 lines of .Net, Oracle, HTML & other code User-friendly interface Beta tested at CSU, Chico & business schools Expanded use by other schools in 2006-2007 Contact: lgardiner@csuchico.edu

How STEPS Facilitates Course-Embedded Assessment

Creates an efficient and systematic way to collect and store large quantities of student work Preserves work samples without filling warehouses

Allows data to be cut multiple ways By major; transfer vs. native student; at-risk

students; FY students vs. seniors Supports review by accreditation teams

Build Learning Goals and Outcomes

Construct Rubrics

Identify Course Assignments

Upload Student Work

Assign Evaluators

Perform Evaluations

Type of GE Course

# of papers assessed

# of paper for class

Week Paper Due

Paper Value (%)

PaperLength

(pp.)

Paper Genre

Lower Division

Area A-2 66 2nd 11 20 5 Rhetorical analysis

Area B-2 16 1st 12 20 3 Case report

Area B-2 65 3rd 10 4 2 Response

Area C-3 24 1st 10 5 2-3 Think piece

Area C-3 48 3rd 12 17 3-5 Summary/ analysis

Area C-3 38 2nd 8 10 3 Summary/ analysis

Area C-3 39 1st 8 25 5-6 Summary/ analysis

Area D-3 19 1st 12 25 10 Research/ Analysis

Area E 76 2nd 14 7 2-4 Think piece

Upper Division

Area B 58 1st 7 15 4-6 Case report

Area D 13 1st Varied 21 7-10 Research paper

Area D 69 1st 11 8 1-2 Flyer

Total = ~ 530 pieces of student writing assessed

A Writing Assignment from Area B-2

Paper 3: Why do anthropologists study primates? (Or, what does it mean to be 98% chimpanzee?)

“…recently, geneticists have been able to determine with precision that humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical genetically . . ..” Jonathan Marks, “98% Alike”, The Chronicle

of Higher Education, May 12, 2000

We are spending approximately five weeks in an anthropology class studying primates… Why? For this paper, concisely explain why studying primates is important to our understanding of what it means to be human. To support your paper you should include a discussion of similarities and differences between us and our closest relatives (specifically the apes). You will want to include both biological and non-biological comparisons.

The paper should be approximately two full pages in length, double-spaced, typed, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. You ARE NOT expected to use outside sources but rather pull primarily from your own experiences, what we have covered in class, and the textbook. You may find your textbook, specifically chapter 11, helpful in formulating your thoughts. You ARE expected to cite and reference any ideas that are not your own (ie. from the textbook or from lecture). You are welcome to use either MLA or APA (the standard types) of citations and references. If you are not familiar with these, I have posted handouts on both styles (from Butte College) on WebCT.

A Writing Assignment from Upper Div. Theme C

Case Study 1 - Trees of Sogolonbougou

Your first major writing assignment will challenge your mediation and problem-solving skills! It does not require any specialized agricultural knowledge; however, in the role of a consultant, you will have to listen very closely to the disputants in a small African village and perhaps apply some of the knowledge that you have begun learning in this class.

There are four parts to this assignment: 1) read Case 1, Trees of Sogolonbougou;2) answer some questions about the case and share your answers

with your group;3) write a draft report providing an analysis and resolution to the

case that you will share with your group;4) critique drafts from your group; and 5) submit the final report to the instructor.

A Writing Assignment from UDT C, cont.

Now, I have to inform you--facilitating a resolution to this case will be your job! Imagine this hypothetical scenario: because of your impressive attributes evidenced by your diligence in Food Forever class, you have been hired as a consultant by a non-profit organization to work with the disputants.

You will apply a standard six-step problem-solving approach:1. Describe the general nature of the problem 2. Describe important facts about the case 3. Identify the decision makers 4. Describe the goals and main concerns of each of the decision

makers 5. Describe several possible alternatives (at least five) 6. Evaluate the alternatives and identify the best solution

In addition, as a follow-up to your analysis-- 7. Describe possible future monitoring

Spr 2006 Combined Scores (%)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Content Grammar and Other Surface Features Organization and Argumentation

Beginning

Competent

Accomplished

Scores (%) by Class Status

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Content Grammar andOther Surface

Features

Organization andArgumentation

Content Grammar andOther Surface

Features

Organization andArgumentation

Freshman Senior

Beginning

Competent

Accomplished

Results: GE Writing

68% scored competent or above on Content

58% scored competent or above on Organization

55% scored competent or above on Grammar A wide variety of writing assignments, with

appropriate level of challenge and complexity in courses examined.

Seniors score significantly better than FY students on Content, Organization and Grammar, but gains are modest.

Results: GE Pedagogy and Assessment

Writing an essential part of GE A variety of audiences, purposes, and genres

for student writing Amount of structure and direction provided by

teachers also varied How best to address writing in GE courses?

Provide support for faculty innovation Syllabi and assignments provided much-

needed context to assessment

Recommendations: GE Writing

Share results of this assessment widely across campus

Continue GE writing assessment at regular intervals Continue to collect student writing, moving toward a

true longitudinal study of writing development Future writing assessment efforts should:

strive to get more systematic and representative samplings

provide more sustained training for readers continue to use STEPS to manage the process capture some of the informal communication

among evaluators of student work

Recommendations: GE Writing, cont’d

Faculty should continue to seek out creative, effective ways to engage students in constructive, developmental writing practices

The university needs to provide ongoing faculty development that supports efforts of faculty at all levels to craft effective, appropriate GE writing assignments

The GE Writing SLOs and rubric should be widely circulated on campus to elicit further discussion and refinement of these tools, and shared with students to provide them with clearer expectations of writing in GE.

Oral Oral CommunicationCommunicationFrom SLOs to Results …From SLOs to Results …

Ruth Guzley & Bill LokerRuth Guzley & Bill Loker

Oral Communication as a Oral Communication as a CSU Chico GE CSU Chico GE requirementrequirement

EM99-05: “in EM99-05: “in everyevery course, relevant skills of course, relevant skills of the Core must be applied as essential to the the Core must be applied as essential to the process of mastering content and making process of mastering content and making applications” . . . and further that “themes will applications” . . . and further that “themes will incorporate, build upon, and nurture skills from incorporate, build upon, and nurture skills from Area A . . .”Area A . . .”

GE Oral Communication requirement met by GE Oral Communication requirement met by CMST131 Speech Comm. Fundamentals CMST131 Speech Comm. Fundamentals oror CMST132 Small Group CommunicationCMST132 Small Group Communication

Oral CommunicationOral CommunicationAssessment Process Assessment Process TasksTasks

1.1. Review & revise GE oral communication Review & revise GE oral communication requirements from EM99-05 in SLO formatrequirements from EM99-05 in SLO format

2.2. Identify spring 2006 GE courses for Identify spring 2006 GE courses for assessment & get instructor permissionassessment & get instructor permission

3.3. Develop oral communication assessment Develop oral communication assessment rubric with help of GE instructorsrubric with help of GE instructors

GE Oral CommunicationSLOs Assessed

SLO1: Students will effectively evaluate content for oral presentations.• research sufficient content (types and sources of content)• select appropriate/relevant content for specified

audience/purpose• accurately interpret and use content• ethically use content (citing sources)

SLO2: Students will effectively organize content used in oral presentations.• clearly identify thesis for presentation (argument, topical, opinion)• content corresponds to thesis• coordinate content in logical or meaningful order• show creativity in content development (themes, metaphors, larger

organizational principles)• shape content to meet needs of audience

SLO3: Students will effectively deliver oral presentation

• style of delivery is appropriate to context (memorized, manuscript, extemporaneous, impromptu)• speaker demonstrates confidence with selected style• speaker uses nonverbal channels to enhance delivery (eye- contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, voice quality)• speaker responds to audience when necessary (corrects confusion, adjusts language, listens to and answers questions)

GE Oral CommunicationSLOs Assessed (cont’d)

AREA A-1 ORAL COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

GOALS & LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT

EFFECTIVEGood or better, above average

level of achievement3

ADEQUATEProficient or average level of

achievement2

UNACCEPTABLEBelow adequate level of

achievement1

ORGANIZATION

Speech uses necessary structure (intro, body, conclusion, transitions) in an effective mannerStructure can be organized in a creative/interesting manner, in addition to being very clear and logicalMeaningful theme/thesis used to coordinate contentPoints distinct, flow easily from one to the next

Speech uses some aspects of the basic structure (intro, body, conclusion, transitions), some more helpful than othersContent is organized with a clear or basic thesis/themeParts of the speech are distinct, some blur together

Basic aspects of structure lacking overallContent lacks a clear thesis/themePoints lack coordination or logic

AREA A-1 ORAL COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

GOALS & LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT

EFFECTIVEGood or better, above average

level of achievement3

ADEQUATEProficient or average level of

achievement2

UNACCEPTABLEBelow adequate level of

achievement1

CONTENT

Content contains good or better informationExplanations enhance audience understanding, clear, helpful logic is used Content includes multiple, relevant sources, quantitative details, types of evidence and/or useful information for supportContent is accurate, provides clear details based on a solid understanding of the information used and cites sources consistently, when necessary

Content contains sufficient, informationSome explanations are included, some helpful, some not, maybe a couple logic flawsContent includes some sources or more than one type of evidence or support or informationContent is mostly accurate and sources are cited at times, when necessary.

Content is not sufficientLacks explanation or clarity, logic problemsContent is too general, vague, not well selected Content includes inaccurate information, is not well understood, and sources are rarely cited, if at all.

GOALS & LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT

EFFECTIVEGood or better, above average level

of achievement3

ADEQUATEProficient or average level of

achievement2

UNACCEPTABLEBelow adequate level of

achievement1

DELIVERY

Speaker’s delivery style/use of notes (manuscript or extemporaneous) is effective, the speaker maintains a focus on the audienceDisplays mostly consistent and audience-focused non-verbals that enhance parts of the speech (eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, vocal quality, pace)Confidence, interest, enthusiasm/energy is evidentSpeaker consistently adjusts to the audience (choice of language, adjusts or rephrases, answers questions), when necessary

Speaker’s delivery style/use of notes (manuscript or extemporaneous) are average, inconsistent focus on audienceDisplays basic competence in non-verbals, some aspects of speech are enhanced (eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, vocal quality, pace)Moderate degree of energy or interest presentShows some evidence of adjusting to the audience (choice of language, adjusts or rephrases, answers questions), when necessary

Speaker’s delivery style/use of notes (manuscript or extemporaneous) is not adequate, lacks focus on audienceLack of competence in the non-verbals, flaws distract from speech (eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, vocal quality, pace)Lack of interest or energySpeaker fails to adjust to the audience (choice of language, adjusts or rephrases, answers questions), when necessary

Oral Communication Assessment

Logistical Issues• Videotaping/digital taping of speeches• Transfer of taped speeches to DVD format• Editing of speeches to facilitate ease of

assessment• Identification of speeches to be used in

norming sessions• Recruitment of assessors • Scheduling of assessment sessions

GE Courses Individual/

Group Pres.

# of Students Enrolled

# of Students Assessed

Area A-1

CMST 131 Individual 410 70

CMST 132 Group 580 64

Area E

Group 14 14

Group 61 40

Theme A

Individual 47 22

Theme O

Individual 38 20

GE Oral Comm. Courses Assessed

Total = 230 student presentations assessed: 53 freshman, 30 sophomores, 69 juniors, 78 seniors

Results: GE Oral Communication Assessment

In both the A-1 classes and the other GE courses assessed, most presentation evaluations indicate students have at least an adequate oral communication skill level in the three characteristics

assessed (organization, content, and delivery). There was little, if any, improvement in student oral communication

skills from the time students took one of the two A-1 classes to the time they reached upper division/theme GE classes (predominantly juniors and seniors), and in some ways their skills appear to have

decayed. There are significant differences in CMST 131 and 132 scores on

all areas assessed (CMST 132 > CMST 131).

Characteristics Overall A-1 Classes Other GE Courses

Organization

Effective 200 (43%) 156 (58%) 44 (23%)

Adequate 193 (42%) 94 (35%) 99 (52%)

Unacceptable 67 (15%) 18 (7%) 49 (25%)

Total 460 268 192

Content

Effective 129 (28%) 94 (35%) 35 (18%)

Adequate 274 (60%) 140 (52%) 134 (70%)

Unacceptable 57 (12%) 34 (13%) 23 (12%)

Total 460 268 192

Delivery

Effective 135 (29%) 95 (35%) 40 (21%)

Adequate 255 (56%) 149 (56%) 106 (55%)

Unacceptable 70 (15%) 24 (9%) 46 (24%)

Total

460 268 192

Oral CommunicationOral CommunicationAssessment:Assessment:RecommendationsRecommendations

• Explore with department chairs and faculty in departments where GE classes are housed:

1) the extent to which oral communication is a requirement in these GE classes

2) if such requirements are consistent with GE oral communication goals and SLOs.

• Identify core oral communication skills that students can build across GE and major classes while acknowledging that variation

is inevitable and acceptable.

Oral CommunicationOral CommunicationAssessment:Assessment:Recommendations Recommendations (Cont’d)(Cont’d)

• Discuss/plan how oral communication should be addressed in GE,

including oral communication requirements, types of assignments, etc.

• Work with coordinators of CMST131 and CMST132 courses to ensure that GE oral communication goals and SLOs are addressed consistently and similarly in the two courses, including use of common rubric.

Schedule a follow-up oral communication assessment in 2-3 years to examine the extent to which recommendations have been implemented and successful. Refine assessment methods based on present experience.

Quantitative Quantitative ReasoningReasoningFrom SLOs to Results …From SLOs to Results …

Margaret OwensMargaret Owens

Welcome to QR!

MATH 101 Patterns of Math. Thought786

MATH 101H Patterns Math. Thought - H

MATH 105 Statistics828

MATH 105H Statistics – Honors

MATH 107 Finite Math. for Business 862

MATH 109 Survey of Calculus 121

MATH 118 Trigonometry 186

MATH 119 Precalculus Math. 192

MATH 120 Analytic Geom & Calc. 407

GE Programmatic Assessment, Mathematical Reasoning, 2005-2006

Student Learning Outcomes† versus GE Goals‡ GE Program Goals GE Core Skills GE Math Goals

Baccalaureate graduates of CSU, Chico will be able to: 1 3 5 2 3 1 2

Outcomes 1 - 3 will be measured through indirect means, e.g., a student response survey.

1) view mathematics with heightened interest, increased confidence, and less anxiety as a result of their educational experiences.

           

2) regard mathematics as a way to think, reason and conceptualize, not simply as a set of techniques.

             

3) understand and appreciate the connections between mathematics and a variety of quantitative and non-quantitative disciplines.

           

Outcomes 4 - 6 will be measured through embedded direct means, e.g., student performance on an existing class assignment associated with one or more learning outcomes and evaluated using a common rubric.

4) develop and apply measurement techniques to data collection, and evaluate potential sources of error, including variability and bias.

     

5) interpret, make appropriate judgments, and draw reasonable conclusions based on numerical, graphical and symbolic information.

    

6) critically evaluate quantitative information, and identify deceptive or erroneous reasoning.

         

† Selected from Learning Outcomes for Mathematical Reasoning for the Baccalaureate Degree, Learning Outcomes Project Final Report, January 15, 1999.

‡ As defined in EM 99-05 The General Education Program:

Quantitative Reasoning – What is It?

Working definition:

Quantitative reasoning is the application of mathematics to describe, analyze, and solve authentic problems in context.

Achieving Quantitative Literacy

Lynn Arthur Steen

Identify GE Faculty, Courses, Assignments

GE Quantitative Reasoning … Where to look? … Area A-4 -- Calculus vs. Probability tracks … In the majors? Where else in GE? Where is it??? EM 99-05 specifies that “in every course, relevant skills of the

Core must be applied as essential to the process of mastering content and making applications.” and further that “themes will incorporate, build upon, and nurture skills from Area A…”

Quantitative Reasoning in GE versus majors? What percentage of students get all their QR in GE? Contributions of GE versus major to student’s QR abilities?

Will someone please pick a direction?! Ultimately: many AREA A-4 classes, + 2 UD GE classes + UD major class (2 UD GE eventually dropped from assessment) …

Course# Sections

# Students Enrolled

# Student Participants

Probability Task Results

MATH 101: Patterns of Mathematical Thought 7 294 196

MATH 105: Statistics 8 273 157

MATH 107: Finite Mathematics for Business 7 260 221

CIVL 302: Engineering Economy and Statistics 1 66 33

Upper-Division GE 2 82 0

Probability Task Totals 25 975 607

Calculus Problem Results

MATH 120: Analytic Geometry and Calculus 5 153 100

GE QR Assessment Courses

The Student Survey

Embedded Probability Tasks1. Which of the following sequences is most likely to result from flipping

a fair coin 5 times? _____ a. H H H T T _____ b. T H T T T _____ c. H T H T H _____ d. All three sequences are equally likely

2. Select the alternative below that is the best explanation for the answer you gave for question 1 above. _____ a. Since the coin is fair, you ought to get roughly equal

numbers of heads and tails. _____ b. Since coin flipping is random, the coin ought to alternate

frequently between landing heads and tails. _____ c. If you get a couple of heads in a row, the probability of a tails on the next flip increases. _____ d. Each sequence of five flips has the same probability of

occurring.

Probability Task ResultsMath Patterns Intro stats Business stats Civil eng. stats

Right 124 63.27% 128 81.53% 154 69.68% 28 84.85%

Wrong 72 36.73% 29 18.47% 67 30.32% 5 15.15%

Totals 196 100.00% 157 100.00% 221 100.00% 33 100.00%

male female dev math no dev math

right 188 67.14% 246 75.23% 164 67.21% 270 74.38%

wrong 92 32.86% 81 24.77% 80 32.79% 93 25.62%

totals 280 100.00% 327 100.00% 244 100.00% 363 100.00%

Embedded Calculus Task

MATH 120 Final Exam Problem

A ladder 13 feet long is leaning against a wall. The bottom of the ladder is being pulled away from the wall at the constant rate of 6 ft/min. How fast is the top of the ladder moving down the wall when the bottom of the ladder is 5 ft from the wall?

Calculus Task Results

score all male female 1st year not 1st year

4 50 50% 41 56% 9 33% 21 43% 29 57%

3 7 7% 3 4% 4 15% 5 10% 2 4%

2 23 23% 16 22% 7 26% 13 27% 10 20%

1 14 14% 8 11% 6 22% 7 14% 7 14%

0 6 6% 5 7% 1 4% 3 6% 3 6%

totals 100 100% 73 100% 27 100% 49 100% 51 100%

mean = 2.81 = 1.35

mean = 2.92 = 1.36

mean = 2.52 = 1.28

mean = 2.69 = 1.33

mean = 2.92 = 1.37

t-test, p = 0.189 t-test, p = 0.401

Calculus Task Score

vs Course Grade

MATH 120

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5

problem score

cou

rse

gra

de

MATH 120 y = 0.309x + 1.6017

R2 = 0.1754

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0 1 2 3 4 5

problem score

cou

rse

gra

de

Other Survey Results

Prior College Math Classes

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

MATH 120 Students

Other Students

All StudentsSurveyed

Anticipated Number of Future Math Classes

050

100150200250300350400

None One Two Three Fouror

More

Freq

uenc

y

MATH 107 and MATH120 Students

Other Students

Recommendations: GE Quantitative Reasoning

Establish benchmarks for quantitative reasoning expectations.This is a campus-wide task: campus expectations for quantitative reasoning? When/where should we assess student progress?

Embed quantitative reasoning across the curriculum.We do students a disservice when we avoid QR simply because students find it difficult. Like writing skills, quantitative reasoning skills need to be reinforced and developed over time and in a variety of settings, both in the majors and in GE.

Provide and support professional development opportunities in quantitative reasoning across the disciplines, including GE.

Develop a collection of resources for faculty wishing to incorporate significant QR into their courses. Provide workshops in which faculty can work together to develop such interdisciplinary resources, including appropriate assessment instruments.

Recommendations: GE Quantitative Reasoning, cont’d

• Begin a campus conversation about the results of this study.

• What is the mathematics enrollment history of a typical student? (Analyze a sample of student transcripts.)

• We don’t know if our students leave college better able to reason quantitatively than when they entered. Do we wish to measure “value added?” How would we measure this?

• Help the campus understand that this study is only a first step is assessing quantitative reasoning and that quantitative reasoning should not be assessed solely in mathematics courses.

Critical Thinking Critical Thinking

From SLOs to Results …?From SLOs to Results …?

Bill LokerBill Loker

Assessing Critical Thinking in GE

AY 06-07 … Process is underway, Task Force formed

Definitional issues: What is Critical Thinking? How can CT be assessed? SLOs? Embedded assessment? Where is CT in GE

curriculum? Appropriate assignments? Detecting, assessing CT in a variety of

assignments? Inter-rater reliability?

Comprehension: In texts and other forms of discourse, students: SLO 1. Can identify issues Does the text address an issue or problem? If so, what is it?….SLO 3. Can recognize the difference between conclusions and the arguments for themIf a conclusion has been reached, what is it? What arguments have been given for that conclusion?

Reasoning: In texts and other forms of discourse, students:

…SLO 9. Can evaluate the credibility of statements and sourcesAre sources and claims both credible?

Critical Thinking SLOs

On Balance ….On Balance ….

AY 05-06 … first steps toward GE Program AY 05-06 … first steps toward GE Program assessment … AY 06-07 fostering assessment … AY 06-07 fostering discussion, assessing CTdiscussion, assessing CT

Faculty discussion and recommendations Faculty discussion and recommendations needed on GE Goals for Oral needed on GE Goals for Oral Communication and Quantitative Communication and Quantitative ReasoningReasoning

Assessment should be ongoing not Assessment should be ongoing not episodic, esp. for longitudinal data, value episodic, esp. for longitudinal data, value added (role of STEPS)added (role of STEPS)

On Balance, more …On Balance, more …

What support do faculty need to What support do faculty need to enhance GE instruction, improve enhance GE instruction, improve student learning?student learning?

What role does assessment have in What role does assessment have in shaping GE reform/revision on our shaping GE reform/revision on our campus?campus?

How can GE better serve the needs How can GE better serve the needs of our students, enhance learning, of our students, enhance learning, connect with majors, explore connect with majors, explore important national/global issues?important national/global issues?

Issues for discussion …Issues for discussion …

Is this Is this Program Program assessment?assessment? Campus conversations: how to Campus conversations: how to

convene, encourage?convene, encourage? Role of students in GE assessment, Role of students in GE assessment,

reform?reform? How to make this work How to make this work

consequential: closing the loop?consequential: closing the loop?

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

• Thanks to all the faculty members who Thanks to all the faculty members who participated in this study, provided access participated in this study, provided access to their classes, assignments, students, to their classes, assignments, students, and participated in assessment activities: and participated in assessment activities: reading, scoring, thinking, discussing … reading, scoring, thinking, discussing …

• Thanks to Don Penland and Lorraine Thanks to Don Penland and Lorraine Gardiner for technical support Gardiner for technical support

• Contact: Contact: wloker@csuchico.eduwloker@csuchico.edu; ; maowens@csuchico.edumaowens@csuchico.edu; ; cfosen@csuchico.educfosen@csuchico.edu; ; rguzley@csuchico.edurguzley@csuchico.edu