Development of Student Learning Outcomes for GE: lessons from a collaborative approach

A Lawson General Education in California Conference, CSU Fullerton May 4, 2010

Campus profile:• Enrollment of 21,500• 1,100 full and part-time faculty (591 T/TT)• ≈55% transfers

GE Governance:• GE committee (senate sub-committee) is

responsible for:– Review of new GE course proposals– Implementing and ensuring compliance with GE

policy (syllabi review)– Recommending changes in GE policy

Lower Division Upper Division

Area A Communication/Critical thinking

A1-Oral Communication

A2-Written Communication

A3-Critical Thinking

Area B Natural Sciences

B1-Physical Science IB - Integrative SciencesB2-Life Science

B4-Quantitative Reasoning

Area C Arts and Humanities

C1-Arts IC - Integrative Arts and Humanities

C2-Humanities

C1 or C2

Area DSocial Sciences

D1-American History ID Integrative Social SciencesD2 –American GovernmentMI Multicultural / International

D3-Social Science

Area ELifelong Learning

E-Lifelong Learning

Units 39 units 12 units 51 total units

CSU Fresno GE Pattern

CSU Fresno GE pattern:• Iterative writing across the curriculum

History of GE Outcomes at Fresno State:• A set of learning outcomes was passed in 2003– Written by one faculty member– 97 outcomes over 16 areas (1-10/area)

Some were not measureable:

“Students deal with human social, political, and economic institutions and behavior and their historical background”Or“Students will be prepared to function in an international, multicultural society”

Some were really course intentions:“Students will prepare at least six written

presentations which receive oral or written critiques by the instructor.”

or“Students will study the influence of major

social, cultural, economic and political forces on societal behavior and institutions”

AAC&U, General Education and Assessment: Engaging Critical Questions, Fostering Critical Learning, Miami Fl Mar 1-3, 2007

Premise:• “In order to have a meaningful assessment of

the GE program we need to start with a set of Student Learning Outcomes for each area that faculty truly embrace, implement and assess.”

Fall 2007 workshops• Faculty were invited to workshops to write outcomes

by area (16 total).• Workshops led by individual GE Committee members–Major obstacles:• Lack of knowledge of the GE program• Lack of knowledge of the requirements of EO 595• Even committee members didn’t always have a

firm grasp on material• Without a starting point, they lacked focus

Fall 2007 workshops• Faculty were invited to workshops to write outcomes

by area (16 total).• Workshops led by individual GE Committee members–Major obstacles:• Lack of knowledge of the GE program• Lack of knowledge of the requirements of EO 595• Even committee members didn’t always have a

firm grasp on material• Without a starting point, they lacked focus

Spring 2008• Brought A1, A2 & A3 to meet with GE

committee to work on outcomes– Worked for some areas (A2), while not others (A3)– Generally not enough time in a 2 hr meeting to

have meaningful discussion

EO 1033 June 18, 2008

(requires outcomes based on LEAP framework)

LEAP Framework: • Knowledge of human cultures and the physical

and natural world• Intellectual and practical skills• Personal and social responsibility• Integrative learning

Fall 2008 – Formation of GE Student Learning Outcomes Taskforce• Office of the Provost committed 9 WTU release

time for 3 faculty (20% time / member)• Recommendations were sought from Deans and

GEC Chair interviewed candidates– Chair of GEC (College of Agricultural Sciences)– One Faculty from History (College of Social Sciences)– One Faculty from Linguistics (College of Arts and

Humanities)

Spring 2009 – Task Force Charged with:

• Work with faculty to develop learning outcomes for each area that fit within Leap Framework

Spring 2009 – Task Force Charged With:

• Suggest a plan for assessing these outcomes

The Process:• Task force members wrote a first draft of

outcomes which reflected EO 1033 and campus program description

• Generally limited to 3 outcomes per area• Drafted the first area together, subsequent

areas separately • 2 hr meetings weekly

Workshops:• 2 hour workshops in each major area (A, B, C, D, E & MI)• Invited:– All faculty who had taught in the area (past 2 yrs)– All department chairs with courses in the area

• Draft of outcomes went out with invitation along with EO1033, program description and LEAP framework

• Invitation stressed importance of SLOs derived from the faculty as well as eventuality of assesment

• Comments via email were welcomed

Workshops:• At least two taskforce members and usually

Dean of Undergraduate Studies attended each workshop

• Edits and suggestions were projected on screen

Revisions:• Outcomes from workshop were distributed to

same list of GE faculty with a three week comment period

• Comments were reviewed and incorporated • Final draft was distributed to all faculty with

another two week comment period

Approval Process:• General Education Committee approved final

draft in May 2009.• Executive Committee reviewed in fall 2009

with a few minor edits• Academic Senate reviewed on March 8 and 22

with approved with one edit

What Contributed to Our Success :• Administration placed resources behind the effort• EO 1033• A leadership team with knowledge of assessment• Providing faculty with a draft as a starting point• Transparency and openness to all input • Stressing need for this to come from the faculty

who are experts in the area

Assessment Plan:• Centralized vs localized (dept level) models• Discussed with Institutional Research &

campus learning and assessment team

Departments Will Provide:• The assignment (s) or piece(s) of student work to

be assessed• The rubric or assessment method to be used to

measure the outcome • The metric used to asses if a student has met the

outcome• A schedule for assessing each outcome (minimum

of one learning outcome per year per course)

Reporting:• Departments will provide a summary of

assessment results as well as changes made as a result of assessment data in annual reports

• IRAP will compile and analyze data for GEC• GEC will asses program based on aggregate

Future of GEC• Move away from indirect compliance

measures like syllabi review• Move toward examining assessment data• Evidence of how courses will meet outcomes

and assessment plans will be required for new course approval

Development of Student Learning Outcomes for GE: lessons from a collaborative approach

Documents

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits · Web viewAssistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is a collaborative peer-reviewed publication of the Assistive Technology Industry

Introduction to Outcomes Informed Care. The content for this course is offered by A Collaborative Outcomes Resource Network (ACORN).

Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes (IPSO)Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes (IPSO) A Multicenter Quality Improvement Collaborative Hosted by The Children’s Hospital Association

The Collaborative Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Student Affairs

Changing the Focus to Outcomes - doclibrary.comdoclibrary.com/MSC149/DOC/CareCoordinationReform... · Changing the Focus to Outcomes P2 Collaborative ... Ensuring those at risk connect

How to Create Collaborative Learning Environments Online and Offline to Improve Student Outcomes (254120580)

Developing collaborative partnerships to improve educational outcomes for foster youth

Collaborative Manufacturing Network for Competitve ...€¦ · © ComVantage Consortium –2014 Collaborative Manufacturing Network for Competitve Advantage: The Outcomes Dr Oscar

Does Collaborative Service Delivery Improve Client and ...€¦ · Does Collaborative Service Delivery Improve Client and Organization Outcomes? PAGE 34 Introduction Collaboration

Collaborative Leadership in a multi-stakeholder environment · Collaborative Leadership in a multi-stakeholder environment David Weaver Senior Partner, DWC. Outcomes from this session

Improving Outcomes Through Collaborative Business Engagement · 2018. 6. 6. · Improving Outcomes Through Collaborative Business Engagement: Sector Strategies / Integrated Services

Collaborative Learning for Outcomes...Collaborative Learning for Outcomes (CLO) process in the 2012– 2013 school year, which is an increase from the original 50 LEAs that had signed

Collaborative Enterprise Planning - Saberpoint€¦ · better decisions and achieve better business outcomes (see Figure 1). Our recommendation for collaborative enterprise planning

IRB & Student Consent in the Multi-State Collaborative to Advance Student Learning Outcomes

Welcome to the November 2014 meeting. Ethos and Outcomes Learning Technologists Network @ Leeds - Ethos and Outcomes Collaborative Share attendance and

UNIVERSITY-BUSINESS COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: GOALS ... collaborative... · UNIVERSITYflBUSINESS COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH: GOALS, OUTCOMES AND NEW ASSESSMENT TOOLS University-Business

Collaborative Nutrition Initiatives Promote Enhanced Patient Outcomes

Outcomes of a Collaborative Research Programme with the

GE CIMPLICITY - General Electric · one that is integrated and collaborative, GE CIMPLICITY* software from GE leverages the latest technologies to ... CIMPLICITY offers a variety

GE Healthcare/media/downloads/us/product/product-cat… · GE Healthcare Centricity Perioperative. Enhancing clinical outcomes through anesthesia information management Centricity*