co-curricular evidence of student learning outcomes for general education and the qep valerie paton,...

Co-curricular evidence of student learning

outcomes for general education and the QEP

Valerie Paton, Ph.D.

Craig Morton, M.Ed.

Sandra Marquez- Hall, Ph.D.

Academic Affairs Perspectives

Student learning is encouraged and supported through the cultivation of human scale settings and an ethos of

learning that pervades all aspects of the institution (Kuh et al. 1994). Learning environments with these

characteristics do not happen by accident. They are intentionally designed (Kuh et al. 2005b; Schroeder and

Hurst, 1996).

In Kuh, G. (2006). What matters to college success: A review of the literature.


“A perspective on Student Affairs” (NASPA, 1987, p. 9), the first “assumption and belief” of student affairs

professionals is: “The academic mission of the institution is preeminent.” As a functional unit, most student affairs structures have at the core of their mission the fostering of student learning through extension of student learning

activities into co-curricular environments.


•Response to C.S.3.5.1. included co-curricular evidence of student learning.

•Interested in intentional co-curricular programs, facilities (environments) or services that extend classroom learning.

Example: Application of critical thinking, problem solving, math, writing, speaking, multicultural skills in leadership, work study, internship, community service activities.


Question: If academic and student affairs aligned PFS to address specific general education or QEP objectives, could we stimulate cognitive and affective learning further by supplementing curricular experiences with co-curricular experiences?



Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)

State-Driven Learning Outcomes/Core Curriculum

Assessment and Planning for Student Affairs divisional assessment of self-reported contribution

Implications

Opportunities for future research

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)Instructions

Part I DSA Contributions to TTU General Education Requirements

In the first large box write the department name

Under the department name there are a number of rows. List all programs that directly apply to the general education requirements

Place a check mark in the box indicating appropriate criteria the PFS meets (PFS - program, facility or service)

Next to the PFS name check the box indicating if there is an assessment/survey for the item

Part II Departmental Assessment and Survey Questionnaire

(Provide information about selected PFS assessment(s) used by your department. An example is provided on the worksheet.)

Department name

Name of PFS and assessment

Supply a brief response under boxes (A-D)

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)Instructions

Part III DSA Contribution to TTU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) “Campus conversation on ethics”

In the first large box write the department name

Under the department name there are a number of rows. List all programs that directly apply to the QEP

Place a check mark in the box indicating appropriate criteria the PFS meets

Next to the PFS name check the box to indicate if there is an assessment for the item

Part IV Departmental Assessment and Survey Questionnaire

(Provide information about selected PFS assessment(s) used by your department. An example is provided.)

Department name

Name of PFS and assessment

Supply a brief description under boxes (A-D)

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)Part 1


1. Indicates which part of the of questionnaire

2. Where the department name is placed

3. The designated general education criteria partsa. Communicationb. Mathematicsc. Natural Sciencesd. Humanities and Visual and Performing Artse. Social and Behavioral Sciencesf. Multiculturalg. Technological and Applied Sciences

4. Where each department lists programs, facilities, and services (PFS) that they feel contribute to the learning outcomes of “3”

5. Where departments indicate which criteria PFS meets

6. Where departments are instructed to indicate if the PFS is formally assessed




3. Questions to determine how PFS is assesseda. If it is a survey or some other form of assessmentb. How often the survey is implementedc. If the survey is internally or externally implementedd. How the results are used

4. Where each department lists programs from Part 1 that are identified as assessed programs and subsequent questions




3. The designated QEP criteria partsa. An Ethical Institutionb. Ethics in the curriculumc. Academic Integrityd. Diversity and Equity

4. Where each department lists programs, facilities, and services (PFS) that they feel contribute to the learning outcomes of “3”

5. Where departments indicate which criteria PFS meets

6. Where departments are instructed to indicate if the PFS is formally assessed




3. Questions to determine how PFS is assesseda. If it is a survey or some other form of assessmentb. How often the survey is implementedc. If the survey is internally or externally implementedd. How the results are used

4. Where each department lists programs from Part 1 that are identified as assessed programs and subsequent questions

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)Part 1 Results

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)Part 2 Results

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)General Education Summary

Departments Programs Programs Total

Not Assessed Assessed Center for Campus Life 9 4 13Hospitality Services 0 4 4Ombudsman for Students 2 1 3Student Counseling Center 3 5 8Student Disability Services 0 4 4Student Judicial Programs 1 1 2University Housing Services 0 11 11

This chart and graph indicate only those PFSs that met minimal requirements established by our office for potential to contribution of general education requirements.

Environmental Scan (Curriculum Mapping)General Education Summary

OBJECTIVES PROGRAMSCommunication 21Mathematics 10Natural Sciences 7Humanities/ Arts 9Social/ Behavioral Sciences 24Multicultural 16Technology/ Applied Sciences 7

Based on the same minimal standards, this chart and this graph demonstrate which general education objectives are most applicable to student affairs within existing programming.

Implications of Environmental Scan (Curriculum Map)

This relatively simple assessment could generate further research

We will discuss this further at the end of the presentation

Meta-analysis that identifies areas of greatest contribution

There are limitations with this due to self-reporting

Gap analysis that identifies areas that possibly should have greater contribution

Not every criteria should be a significant area of contribution for student affairs

An effective way to determine the level of assessment within the division

It was easily recognized that for many within the division, there was little understanding between program assessment and assessment of student learning

Implications of Environmental Scan (Curriculum Map)

The results were used as a tool to discuss focusing departmental activity

Self-report is typically a limitation, but here it was beneficial for focusing the strategic planning of the division

It has been an effective way to demonstrate the activity of the division and its alignment with the academic mission

In other words, it was beneficial in and of itself

Indirect evidence of student learning was used from the division in the re-accreditation process

Ultimately, nationally normed, benchmarked student life research provided the best contribution


Considerations

~ Student affairs and the academic mission

~ Student affairs and indirect assessment

~ Collaborations vs. regular activities

Obstacles

~ Little research on existing models

~ Curriculum

~ Culture of assessment


Using the data from this exploratory assessment, student affairs has been able to develop a collaboration with academic areas to meet reaffirmation needs

~ Texas Tech Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) deals with Ethics (ethics in the curriculum and academic integrity)

~ The assessment discussed here identifies Communication and Behavioral Sciences as Student Affairs greatest potential contribution to general education

~ By implementing the Defining Issues Test (DIT) across the institution student affairs is not only able to help contribute to the QEP, but is able to identify a potential pretest/ posttest that provides direct learning assessment for general education on the items of Communication and Behavioral Sciences.

The DIT is being administered in ethics courses, service learning environments, student affairs co-curriculum environments determined to have an established curricular element (student employment), and to a random sample.

Other options have also been discussed such as the Critical Thinking Inventory.


Four Environment groups to include:

Control Group (n = 100)- Random sample from IRIM

Curricular- (Philosophy 2320 course [n= 100])

Service Learning courses in Spring

Co-curricular (n = 100)

Selected co-curricular environments (four departments within student affairs with high student employment which requires various levels of training and

responsibility)

Construct Input

(students pre-experience)

Environment

(university conditions)

Output

(SLO learning dependenton Environment)

Evidence

Pre-test Post-test Score change

Ethical Reasoning Defining Issues Test Control GroupPhilosophy 2320Service Learning CoursesCo-curricular

Defining Issues Test a. frequency distributionb. ANOVA analysisc. within / between analysis

Valerie Paton, Ph.D.

Vice Provost, Planning and Assessment

Director, TTU Strategic Planning

Craig Morton, M.Ed.

Unit Manager, Assessment and Planning for Student Affairs

Sandra Marquez-Hall, Ph.D.

???

co-curricular evidence of student learning outcomes for general education and the qep valerie paton,...

Documents

fostering of student

learning environments

student affairs structures

student affairs naspa

classroom learning

ethos of learning

affective learning

cocurricular environments