Institutionalizing a General Education Program Review Process: Outcomes Assessment

Background

The Strategic Plan of CSUDH for 2003-2008 includes student learning and achievement as a priority. A primary goal regarding student outcomes and assessment is to "Strengthen and assess student learning for academic excellence and social responsibility" (CSUDH Strategic Planning Taskforce, 2003, p.24).The means by which this goal is to be accomplished include "strengthen[ing] the process of learning assessment for continuous program and instructional improvement by fully integrating assessment into all university processes... [and] provid[ing] remedial instruction that improves persistence to graduation and establishes measurable outcomes" (CSUDH Strategic Planning Taskforce, 2003, p.24). As the Strategic Plan evolved, new University academic policies began to focus on assessing courses and programs to ascertain that instruction is student-centered and has measurable and/ or observable student outcomes as suggested by current thinking in the scholarship of teaching and learning (Allen, 2004). While it must meet the requirements of the State of California Education Code, the GE Review process is independent from state review, yet compatible and consistent with the review process for all CSUDH academic programs.

The GE Program is designed to provide undergraduate students with the foundational skills and knowledge required of a well-educated person. The framework for General Education at Dominguez Hills consists of program-level goals, Area-level objectives and/or outcomes, and course-level objectives and/or outcomes. The program-level goals articulate (1) competencies and skills essential to further study, (2) knowledge of physical and human environments and the legacies of predecessors in civilization, and (3) principles, methodologies, value systems, and thought processes employed in human inquiry (CSUDH Catalog, 2005-2007, p.91). These goals provide direction for the University GE objectives in seven Areas. The seven University GE Areas are: Area A-Basic Skills (composition, quantitative reasoning, logic and critical reasoning, and oral communication); Area B-Natural Sciences; Area C-The Humanities; Area D-Social Sciences; Area E-The Whole Person; Area F-Upper Division Integrated Studies; and Area G-Cultural Pluralism. Each Area has specific university level objectives outlining what students are able to do after completing selected courses from the designated Areas. These Area objectives, in turn, provide direction for GE designated course-level objectives.

The GE Committee, comprised of undergraduate and graduate faculty from across the University, is charged with oversight of the GE Program including its review process. A five-year review cycle has been determined so that one or two of the seven Areas are reviewed in each of Years 1 through 4 with a total program review in Year 5. A Review Team for each Area is established and is chaired by a GE Committee faculty member. Three additional faculty members, one each selected by the GE Committee, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, and the Provost constitute the team. Additionally, the University Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee chair or faculty designee participates upon request.

Although the CSUDH GE Program has been in existence for more than 25 years, the first program review was instituted in the 2003-04 academic year. The review process was designed to accomplish the following purposes:

1. Help the GE Program faculty perform a self-analysis concerning the courses they are teaching for GE;

2. Perform a systematic review to provide evidence to accrediting agencies about student learning outcomes and achievement;

3.Ascertain whether or not GE course objectives/ outcomes are student-centred, measurable and/or observable and appropriately reflect the University GE Area objectives;

4.Ascertain whether or not there is evidence that students are mastering the stated University GE Area objectives and course objectives/outcomes in each Area;

5. Provide opportunity for GE program faculty to give feedback to the GE Committee regarding the Area mission and objectives, with recommendations for modifications as appropriate; and

6.Determine whether or not a course meets the standards for continuation in the GE Program.

Early in the Fall semester, faculty teaching GE courses in the Area under review are reminded that they need to collect student materials during the semester and to give them to the Course Coordinator, who is appointed to collect and assemble materials to be submitted to the GE Committee for review in the Spring semester. Faculty are asked to submit course syllabi, graded student work, and sample exams with a range of grades. The Course Coordinator then organizes faculty discussions to analyze those materials for evidence of alignment with University GE objectives; student centred, measurable objectives/outcomes; adequate assessment methods; appropriate and current course content and resource materials; academic rigor; and commensurability across sections when large enrolment necessitates multiple classes of the same course. The Course Coordinator is responsible for summarizing the results of the discussion, including any faculty recommendations to strengthen the University GE Area objectives, and forwarding a portfolio including the faculty-collected materials, the Standard Course Syllabus created for the University Curriculum Committee, and the analysis to the Area Review Team for examination in the Spring semester. The Area Review Team members independently examine each course portfolio received using an agreed upon rubric (see Tables 1 and 2 in Discussion Review process); Review Team members then meet to reach consensus regarding recommendations about each course which are then forwarded to the GE Committee. Based on the results of the assessment, the GE Committee determines action to be taken for individual courses and sends written results of the course review including feedback and suggestions, to the course faculty and coordinator.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يطلق الدورة السابعة للدراسات الحوزوية الإلكترونية بمشاركة 17 دولة

المجمَع العلمي يختتم دورته التطويرية الخامسة لأساتذة التربية الإسلامية في النجف

وفد العتبتين المقدستين يحضر مجالس عزاء ضحايا حريق الكوت

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تشارك في استعادة مكتبة جامعة الموصل ورئاسة الجامعة واليونيسكو تشيدان بالشراكة معها

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

أخصائية تكشف خطورة عادة "شائعة" في غسل المناشف

دراسة: بيضة واحدة أسبوعيا قد تقي من الإصابة بـ

على عكس الشائع.. هذا هو العدد المثالي للخطوات اليومية !

شهر التوعية بالساركوما... أطباء يحذرون من "السرطان الصامت"

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ذكر أم أنثى؟.. دراسة تنسف الاعتقاد الشائع حول جنس المولود

بحجم برج بيزا.. تحذير من كويكب يقترب من الأرض في هذا الموعد

أقصر يوم في تاريخ البشرية.. الموعد قريب ؟!!

مايكروسوفت تحذر شركات وأجهزة حكومية من هجوم "يوم الصفر"

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

An assessment framework: some background and a sales spiel

Why an assessment framework?

Assessing problematic graduate attributes: a case study

Influence by scholarship

Influence by operationalization

Influence as mentor

Curriculum influence

A conceptual framework for the A/ Deans learning and teaching role

The role of the Assistant Dean, learning & teaching

An Assistant Dean, Learning and Teachings Role in Quality Assuring Assessment

Institutionalizing a General Education Program Review Process: Outcomes Assessment Next steps

GE Program evaluation