Assessing General Education: Options, Choices and Lessons Learned
Jo-Ellen Asbury, Ph.D.Rebecca Kruse
Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Stevenson University
Assessing General Education
We don’t have all the answers
We invite audience input and insights
We are not cheerleaders for national tests, it was the decision that we made at that time
No, we get no kick-back from ETS!
* We are not here to advocate use of the MAPP ETS Proficiency Profile or any specific test or assessment. We want to share our experience and generate a conversation.
2
Min. 16 academic courses in liberal arts and sciences and 1 course in phys ed. All students must complete the following:
Skills Courses: Three writing courses One communication course One physical education course Computer literacy requirement
Distribution Courses: One fine arts course Two social science courses Three math and science courses (at least one lab) Four humanities courses humanities
Core Electives (2 courses, 6 credits) Foreign Language (Bachelor of Arts only) 2 courses
3
SU Core Curriculum Requirements (Bachelor’s Degree)(General “Cafeteria” Style)
The problem:How to assess the General Education program
Unlike a major (psychology, math, etc.) does not have: A firm fairly prescribed list of requirements. A faculty member (or group of faculty members) who take sole responsibility for
oversight. A capstone project/paper/experience that could be used to assess student
learning outcomes.
Student learning outcomes for gen ed were evolving. Currently, no centralized oversight.
4
5
Individual Course-Based Approach Information collected about learning in individual courses. Faculty
demonstrate that students acquiring knowledge, skills, values associated with one or more gen ed goals. Assignments, exams, portfolios, etc.
Multicourse (Theme-Based) Approach Focus on faculty from number of disciplines rather than individual courses.
Review of syllabi, focus groups.
Noncourse-Based Approach Campuswide focusing on individual or groups of students rather than
courses. Gen ed assessment given to all or a sample of students. Standardized testing, student and alumni surveys, transcript analysis.
Possible General Education Assessment Approaches
Source: Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessing general education. In Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, improving (pp. 239-268). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6
Method(s) used needs to match learning goals Because gen ed programs include a broad range of
learning goals and objectives, critical thinking, communication, values, attitudes…. Need to be careful that the methods used will address all of these objectives
May need more than one method
Settled on some type of nationally-normed instrument.
Selecting a Gen Ed Assessment Method
Use of Published Tests / Assessments
Developed by testing professionals (test design, quality of questions better)
Can provide comparison data Provide detailed, diagnostic feedback Variety of published tests to reflect diversity among schools
and programs Longitudinal data confidence
7
Pros
~ from the paper, “The Role of Published Tests and Assessments in Higher Education”, March 2006, by Linda Suskie, MSCHE Vice President
Use of Published Tests / Assessments
8
Consider the distinct set of knowledge, skills and competencies your institutions seeks to instill and should be used in combination with other evidence of student learning.
Examples of Tested Writing Skills
Examples of Tested Critical Thinking Skills
ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency & Progress (MAPP)
Discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of parallelism.
Recognize redundancy
Evaluate competing casual explanations.
Determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion.
ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP)
Formulate an assertion about a given issue.
Organize and connect major ideas.
Generalize and apply information beyond the immediate context.
Make appropriate comparisons.
Council for Aid to Education Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)
Support ideas with relevant reasons and examples.
Sustain a coherent discussion.
Deal with inadequate, ambiguous, and/or conflicting information.
Spot deceptions and holes in the arguments made by others.
“The Role of Published Tests and Assessments in Higher Education”Linda Suskie, Middles States Commission on Higher EducationMarch 25, 2006
Use of Published Tests / Assessments
If no compelling incentive, students may not give best effort. Challenge to get students to take and to give best effort.
Published tests for higher ed have less evidence of quality than K-12 tests. Smaller # of students, may not be representative, less funds, etc.
Certain published tests may not yield enough useful feedback .
9
Cons
from “The Role of Published Tests and Assessments in Higher Education”, Linda Suskie, Middles States Commission on Higher Education, March 25, 2006
Use of Published Tests / Assessments
Match goals for student learning set by the institution Specific content must correspond with institution’s concepts
(how does institution define critical thinking for example) Provide rich, detailed feedback that can be used to identify
areas for improvement Have evidence of validity and reliability Provide some incentive for students to do their best
10
Chosen Assessment Should:
from “The Role of Published Tests and Assessments in Higher Education”, Linda Suskie, Middles States Commission on Higher Education, March 25, 2006
ETS Proficiency Profile / MAPP TestSelected MAPP by ETS: Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress. (now called ETS Proficiency Profile)
Corresponds well with university core and measures what we want to measure
Several different formats to choose from (online, standard, abbreviated)
Can add up to 50 of our own supplemental questions Rich reporting features including comparative data and diagnostic
feedback, norm-referenced scores and criterion-referenced scores SU has changed so rapidly and is still changing – important for us
to be able to do comparisons, benchmarking, see differences between cohorts, etc.
11
More on ETS Proficiency ProfileMeasure of Academic Proficiency and Progress
(now called ETS Proficiency Profile…)
Assesses four core skill areas – critical thinking, reading, writing and mathematics at three levels
Measures academic skills developed, as opposed to subject knowledge taught, in general education courses
12
Results and Reporting Multitude of reporting options available
Comparison between cohorts/subgroups (separate out specific groups - majors, schools w/in University, commuters vs. noncommuters, etc. Can ask different cohorts different suppl. questions.)
Identify specific proficiency level (1-3) of core skill deficiencies (ETS has specific definitions at each level)
External and internal benchmarking
Value-Added – compare against other metrics such as GPA, SAT, etc.
Identify patterns (e.g. do students do better in certain areas if certain courses are taken in a certain order? Etc.)
13
Next Issue: Schedule for Administration
14
Pre-Post Test
Test students when then enter, then test again at a later point in their Stevenson career. WHEN should the second testing take place? Internal validity threats
History Maturation Mortality Selection Testing
15
Cohort-Sequential Design
Compensates for (most of) the internal validity threats
Provides both between subject and within subject data.
16
How the cohort-sequential design is being used SU
COHORT #1 (entered F ‘08) COHORT #2 (enter F ‘10)
AY 2008-2009 Fall, 2008
AY 2009-2010 Spring, 2010
AY 2010-2011 Fall, 2010
AY 2011-2012 Spring, 2012
17
Next Issue: Planning for Administration
18
Our Plan
19
Administer to incoming freshman
Test same students again in the end of sophomore year
Freshmen
20
How do we get a large number of freshmen to take the test? Commitment from Director of First Year
Experience to administer in First Year Seminars (all incoming freshman take a FYS)
Goes on the syllabus Peer leaders (not us) to administer
Freshmen – Issues/Challenges
21
Test version? (long, abbreviated, online) 2007 – used long version (2 hrs) switched to abbreviated (40
mins) Cost (tests, materials) Student leader instructions for administering
Very specific instructions / script Customize instruction book
Materials to and from student leaders Tests, pencils, instructions, ID Cards, calculators
Retesting as Sophomores
22
384 freshmen took in fall 2008
Where and how can we test that amount of students now as sophomores?
Do we test all 384 at same time on same day in same location? Do we have the room on campus?
Do we have enough supplies to test all at one time? What’s the best time during the semester? Who would proctor the tests? How do we get sophomores to volunteer to take
test? No way to capture – no one class that all take.
Recruiting Sophomores
23
Used to use scholarship hoursPizza lunchGift card drawingsOffered choice of two different days Marketed through emails, plasma screens in
student union, faculty
Recruiting Sophomores
24
A week before, response still not greatAdded more gift cardsOpened up to ALL sophomores, not just ones
who took it as freshmen46 students out of 384 signed up27 showed up split between both days
Other Recruiting Ideas: Gift certificates or pay for all students who take the
test Change test format – use online format Reward those with high scores so test is taken
seriously and they do their best ETS reports that most effective is combination of extrinsic and
academic reward – something to get them there and something to get them to take it seriously
Put high scores on an honor roll Make it a requirement for registration for junior year Withhold grades until test is taken
25
Latest Plan
26
Try online non-proctored version.
Recruit 100 random students from the 384 tested as freshman in 2008 who didn’t retake it in spring.
Give each one $10 gift card to take online
Data ReceivedClosing the Loop/Going Forward
27
28
Cohort 1: Summary of Stevenson University Proficiency Classifications (natl. comparison in parenthesis)
Proficient - Freshmen (FA08)
Proficient - Sophomore
(SP10)
Marginal - Freshmen (FA08)
Marginal - Sophomore
(SP10)
Not Proficient - Freshmen (FA08)
Not Proficient - Sophomore
(SP10)
Reading Level 1 56% (57%) 67% (59%) 24% (22%) 26% (23%) 20% (20%) 7% (18%)
Reading Level 2 26% (28%) 44% (27%) 19% (19%) 26% (20%) 56% (53%) 30% (53%)
Reading Level 3 (Critical Thinking) 3% (4%) 7% (3%) 9% (12%) 7% (10%) 88% (84%) 85% (86%)
Writing Level 1 62% (61%) 70% (59%) 26% (25%) 26% (28%) 12% (14%) 4% (13%)
Writing Level 2 15% (16%) 19% (14%) 38% (35%) 37% (34%) 48% (49%) 44% (52%)
Writing Level 3 6% (7%) 4% (5%) 24% (25%) 30% (24%) 70% (68%) 67% (71%)
Math Level 1 52% (50%) 59% (45%) 26% (28%) 22% (29%) 22% (22%) 19% (26%)
Math Level 2 26% (25%) 22% (19%) 26% (26%) 37% (26%) 48% (49%) 41% (54%)
Math Level 3 7% (6%) 7% (4%) 14% (15%) 11% (12%) 78% (79%) 81% (84%)
29
Cohort 1: Distribution of Individual Student Scores and Subscores
Possible Range
SU Mean Score
Freshmen (FA08) n=380
Natl. Comparison (Freshmen)
SU Mean Score
Sophomore (SP10) n=27
Natl. Comparison (Sophomore)
SU Score Increase/ Decrease
(pts)
SU Score Increase/
Decrease (%)
Total Score 400-500 439.81 441.1 443.41 439.6 3.60 0.82%
Skills Subscores:
Critical Thinking 100-130 110.23 110.3 110.26 110.0 0.03 0.03%
Reading 100-130 116.34 117.1 118.89 117.1 2.55 2.19%
Writing 100-130 113.75 113.8 114.67 113.5 0.92 0.81%
Mathematics 100-130 112.80 113.0 112.81 112.0 0.01 0.01%
Context-Based Subscores:
Humanities 100-130 113.59 113.9 114.30 113.8 0.71 0.63%
Social Sciences 100-130 112.15 112.6 112.59 112.5 0.44 0.39%
Natural Sciences 100-130 114.17 114.0 115.93 113.9 1.76 1.54%
Closing the Loop/Going Forward
Determine the mechanism for internal decision-making and the process used for identifying deficiencies and implementing change
Share results
Other measures of same core skills
Content mapping
30
Other Ideas for….
- assessing general education?- recruiting students?
- using data and closing the loop?- other?
31
Suskie, L. (2006, March 25). The role of published tests and assessments in Higher Education. In Middle States Commission on Higher Education [Report]. Retrieved from http://www.msche.org/publications/ published-instruments-in-higher-education.pdf
ETS® Proficiency Profile Case Studies. (2008). Educational Testing Services. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/case_studies/
ETS® Proficiency Profile Content. (n.d.). Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/about/content/
Walvoord, B. E. (2004). For general education. In Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments and general education (pp. 67-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessing general education. In Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, improving (pp. 239-268). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32
References