Each academic year, the following questions are examined to effectively inform and guide assessment of the general education curriculum:
The University of Oklahoma has adopted an approach to assessing its general education student learning outcomes via assignments that are a regular part of the course content. A strength of this approach is that the student work products or artifacts are an authentic part of the curriculum, and hence there is a natural/organic alignment often missing in standardized assessments. Students are motivated to perform at their best because the assignments are part of the course content and end of course grade. The assessment activities require little additional effort on the part of course faculty because the assignments used are a regular part of the coursework. An additional benefit of this method is faculty collaboration and their liberty in selection of the assignments or projects intended to be used as the venue for addressing various performance indicators in each SLO.
Though the sampled student work products are scored independently by each faculty member and, where applicable, graduate teaching assistants in their courses using well-developed rubrics, results of the process are then systematically aligned with performance indicators (as criteria) for the SLO that is being addressed, and the following simple scale (Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Partially Meets Expectations and Did Not Expectations). The results of this uniform scoring strategy provide, for each course, quantitative estimates of students' performance and qualitative descriptions of what each performance level looks like, which provides valuable information for the process of improvement. The normal disadvantage to this type of approach when compared to standardized tests is that results cannot be compared to other institutions
The six general education student learning outcomes (SLOs) are assessed on a 3-semester recurring cycle. Though the schedule reflects assessment of two SLOs per semester with two to three courses addressing each SLO, there is flexibility to allow for assessment of more than one SLO in a course. For instance, the assessment projects used for assessing Quantitative and Numerical Analysis SLO in a course could also be used to assess Critical Analysis and Scientific Reasoning Skills SLO in that same course. This provides opportunities for a learning outcome or outcomes to be assessed more than once in a single cycle.
To gather evidence of student learning, faculty are encouraged to use a variety of assessment methods as means obtaining effective feedback regarding their students’ performance in their general education courses. The two commonly used assessment methods are direct and indirect.
Assessments that are based on an analysis of student behaviors and/or products in which they demonstrate how well they have mastered the knowledge and skills in the Performance Indicators for the general education SLOs. Direct assessments, whether formative or summative, quantitative, or qualitative, allow faculty to collect evidence of student learning or achievement directly from students and the works that they submit to as part of the course requirements. Examples include:
Reports of direct assessments are submitted at the end of each semester by faculty using a simple General Education Assessment Template. Click here to view the template.
Assessments that comprises analysis of reported perceptions about student mastery of learning outcomes. At OU, the general education assessment process utilizes the General Education Student Survey as a form of indirect assessment. The survey provides perspectives of student perceptions and experiences regarding acquisition of knowledge and skills in the performance indicators for the general education SLOs assessed in each general education course. In addition, the assessment process uses the General Education Faculty Survey to gather faculty perceptions regarding their pedagogical experiences embedding performance indicators for the general education SLOs in their course curriculums. Results of the indirect assessments are used to augment or supplement outcome of direct assessments.
Both surveys are deployed at least two weeks before the end of each semester. Besides incorporating outcome of analysis of both students’ and faculty general education surveys in the institutional General Education Assessment Report, data from the student survey is usually shared with faculty in each course as it provides a rich source of information that can be used for continuous improvement at the course level.
In addition to emphasizing the use of already existing “signature” assignments embedded in general education courses, sampling methods are recommended as that lays the foundation for the generalizability of the results. Part of the rationale for this is that all academic departments/schools play key roles in helping students achieve the general education learning outcomes. Thus no one section of the University is single-handedly responsible for helping students to communicate effectively, conduct accurate quantitative and numerical analysis accurately, or apply technology and information literacy skills appropriately. These skills are practiced in numerous general education courses. Therefore, a matrix approach to sampling is adopted, so that, over time, assessment of student work products take place every semester, in a variety of general education courses offered in different disciplines and aligned with each SLO. The OU General Education Curriculum Map illustrates this alignment (pdf).
As courses are selected for assessment of the general education SLOs, we ensure a representative mix of course offerings, for example, by discipline to promote diversity of courses addressing the same SLO. Also, for general education assessment purposes, courses are selected that not only meet the SLOs, but are also among those that reflect large enrollment, for the purpose of representing as much as possible, the work of "typical" OU students.
The course selection process begins with discussions among members of the General Education Assessment Subcommittee regarding the SLO to be addressed the following semester as well as courses that would assess each SLO. The Director of Academic Assessment then meets with faculty members of the selected courses to provide additional information and discuss details regarding the assessment process (e.g., assessment templates for reporting results of direct assessments, dates for deploying general education surveys). Faculty are then asked to review their course content and assignments, and to select one “signature” assignment, an exam, a combination of assignments or a mix of both assignments and an exam that they believe best addresses or fits the performance indicators of the SLOs they are meant to assess.
Given that our process relies heavily on the use of already existing “signature” assignments embedded in general education courses, scoring of student work or artifacts is usually done by faculty as discipline experts. In some cases, especially in large-enrollment courses featuring multiple sections, faculty invite graduate teaching assistants to assist with scoring of student work/artifacts.
As indicated before, sampled student work products are scored independently by each faculty member and, where applicable, graduate teaching assistants using well-developed rubrics. Results of the process are then systematically aligned with performance indicators (as criteria) for the SLO that is being addressed, and the following simple scale (Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Partially Meets Expectations and Did Not Expectations). The results of this uniform scoring strategy provide, for each course, quantitative estimates of students' performance and qualitative descriptions of what each performance level looks like, which provides valuable information for the process of improvement.
At the end of every semester, faculty in charge of assessing various general education SLOs submit completed General Education Assessment Templates to the Office of Academic Assessment. The data is analyzed along with responses from both General Education Student Surveys and General Education Faculty Surveys.
The Office of Academic Assessment prepares the institutional General Education Assessment Report. This report is first reviewed by the General Education Assessment Subcommittee before it is presented to the Provost’s Advisory Committee for General Education Oversight (PACGEO) to review and make recommendations for continuous improvement.
While faculty are responsible for making ongoing course-level curriculum modifications based on student achievement, Provost’s Advisory Committee for General Education Oversight (PACGEO) is responsible for making broad, institutional recommendations and for implementing general education program improvements based on general education assessment results.
