PRESENTATION TO ASSOCIATION OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING OFFICERSBUFFALO, NEW YORKJUNE 11, 2009

How Campuses are Closing the GE

Assessment Loop: A GEAR Report

PATRICIA FRANCIS, SUNY ONEONTA (GEAR CO-CHAIR)MELANIE VAINDER, FARMINGDALE STATE COLLEGE (GEAR CO-CHAIR)MICHAEL S. GREEN, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGEHEDVA LEWITTES, COLLEGE AT OLD WESTBURY

Presenters

Session Topics

GEAR Group History and ChargeRationale for Triennial Review/Closing the

Loop ProcessReview Criteria for Closing the Loop ReportsGood Closing the Loop Practice – Hudson

Valley Community College

Good Closing the Loop Practice – College at Old Westbury

PATRICIA FRANCISASSOCIATE PROVOST FOR

INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT AND EFFECTIVENESSSUNY ONEONTA

GEAR Group: History, Charge, and Triennial

Review/Closing the Loop Process

GEAR Group Role

Formation of GEAR Group in January 2001 To create guidelines for campus GE assessment plans Provide initial and ongoing review of these plans,

focusing on how campuses were using assessment results to improve their GE program

Implementation of Strengthened Campus-Based Assessment in 2004

Triennial Review/CTL Process (October 2007) Plan updates triennial, not biennial (19 due each year,

on March 1) To document substantive changes to existing campus

plans To demonstrate that campuses were indeed using

assess-ment data to improve teaching, learning, and programs

MELANIE VAINDERPROFESSOR OF PROFESSIONAL

COMMUNICATIONSFARMINGDALE STATE COLLEGE

Review Criteria for Closing the Loop Reports

Development of Guidelines

Triennial Updates Campuses asked to provide minimal information

unless substantive changes had been made to plan GEAR’s review of updates evaluative (i.e., leading to

approval or recommendations for revision)

Closing the Loop Reports GEAR’s review of CTL reports “for feedback only” Close alignment between GEAR and Middle States

expectations (“Closing the Loop Tips”) GEAR’s intention that good CTL practices could be

identified and shared with other campuses

Making Changes Based on Assessment

Criterion #2 Did faculty members meet to review and discuss

assessment results as compared to a priori standards? Did these discussions lead to conclusions about

strengths and weaknesses and, as appropriate, suggestions for programmatic or pedagogical change?

Criterion #3 Were proposed changes clearly linked to assessment

findings?

Criterion #4 Were recommended changes in curriculum/teaching

actually made?

Documenting the Assessment Process

Criterion #6 Are assessment data based on documented results

(i.e., not informal observation or anecdote)? Are intended changes based on these results

documented? Does the institution provide evidence that closing the

loop activities are taking place on an ongoing basis and that these activities are having a subsequent impact on student learning?

Institutional Support for Assessment

Criterion #7 Does the institution provide professional development

op-portunities that will help faculty make programmatic changes intended to improve student learning?

Does the institution support faculty members in their attempts to learn more about the assessment of student learning?

Criterion #8 Are resources allocated specifically as a result of

documented assessment data? Does the institution establish budgeting priorities

based on assessment practices and results?

Implications for the Assessment Process

Criterion #5 Do documented assessment findings lead to changes

in the campus’ assessment plan or processes? Are results from student performance evaluated and

compared to results from prior assessments?

Criterion #9 Is the assessment process itself evaluated and revised

for the next round (with faculty governance input as appropriate)?

Are all appropriate members of the campus community involved in this evaluation process?

Are evaluation results and proposed changes shared with the larger campus community?

Dissemination of Assessment Results

Criterion #1 Does the institution provide evidence that student

learning outcomes data are shared with all appropriate faculty and staff members for the purpose of review and discussion?

Criterion #10 Are student learning outcomes data shared, in

aggregate form, with faculty, departments, support staff, and administrators?

MICHAEL S. GREENEXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT FOR

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Closing the Loop at Hudson Valley

Community College

Closing the Loop Report - Structure

Section I – Describes Changes to General Education Assessment Plan

Section II – Describes Use of the Assessment Process and Results

Section I – Changes to Plan

Describe Changes to Approved Plan and Provide Rationale for Changes

Describe how Plan Undergoes Review When does review take place? Who does review? How are suggested changes approved and

implemented?

How are Changes to be Assessed?

Section I – Changes to Plan (cont.)

Describe Results of Any Pilot Studies

Describe Plans for Immediate Future

Section II – Use of Process and Results

Describe Who Receives Results and How Results are Communicated to the Campus

Describe how Results are Used at Department/Program and/or Campus Level(s) (Provide Specific Examples)

Section II – Use of Process and Results (cont.)

Describe any Professional Development Activities at Department and/or College Level(s) Related to Instruction and Assessment

Describe the Linkages Between Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation

Suggestions

Make Collection of GE Assessment Results and Steps Taken Due to the Results (e.g., Changes to Instruction and Courses, Professional Development Activities) Part of Regular Assessment Processes

Communicate Directly with Department Chairs and Faculty to Get Information about How Results are Used

Share Steps Taken Due to Assessment Results with Campus Community (No Need to Reinvent the Wheel)

HEDVA LEWITTESPROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY

AND DIRECTOR OF ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT

COLLEGE AT OLD WESTBURY

Closing the Loop at the College at Old Westbury

Starting the Process: Reviewing GE Summary Report Forms

Compare Results from Two Completed Cycles

Review Recommended Actions Which were accomplished and which were

problematic? Describe the process and people involved

Use Section on “Program Improvements Made” from Second Cycle of GE Assessment as Outline for CTL Report Include improvements at the institutional level

that address findings and recommendations across knowledge areas.

Example: Western Civilization

First Assessment Round Revealed Target Not Met for Western Civilization Outcome #2

Results Disseminated to GE Committee Representatives for Knowledge Area and Chairs (Criterion #1)

Improvements Were Made Based on Review and Discussion (Criteria #2, #3) Explicit incorporation of outcomes into syllabi and

assignments (especially with adjunct faculty) Development of new course, History of Math

Clear Improvement in Student Performance in Second Assessment Round

Example: Basic Communication [Written]

Writing Assessments Indicated Need to Improve Writing in Knowledge Areas, Including American History, Social Sciences, and Humanities (Criteria #1, #2, #3)

Development and Filling of New Position (Director of the Writing Center) (Criterion #8)

Actions to Be Assessed in Next Round (Criterion #5) Referring students to the Writing Center Bringing classes to the Center for instruction

Example: Critical Thinking

Revision of Assessment Procedures Across Knowledge Areas to Accommodate SUNY Rubrics (Criteria #5, #9)

Rubric Training Workshop Held, Co-sponsored by Dean and Teaching for Learning Center (Criteria #7, #8)

Results Revealed Fewer Students Meeting Standards Compared to Previous Assessment (Criteria #1, #2)

New Workshop Planned (Criteria #3, #4, #7, #8) Will emphasize teaching, integrating critical thinking into

the disciplinary curriculum, linking it with assignments/exams and collaboration

To be funded by Provost

Example: MathematicsResults from Initial Mathematics Assessment

(Criteria #1, #2, #3) Percentage of students meeting standards high compared

to other measures (e.g., grades, withdrawal rates) Higher-level problem-solving skills not assessed

adequately Need to accommodate students at different ability levels

Subsequent Professional Development and Funding Activities (Criteria #7, #8) Faculty attendance at SUNY Conference and rubrics

workshops Submission of course re-design grant Funding of power math format course

Examples: Criteria #6 (Mechanisms in Place to Document Changes) and #9 (Assessing the

Assessment)

Actions Taken to Clarify/Simplify Process and Encourage Feedback Development of Uniform Course Report Format,

allowing faculty to provide assessment results and comment on process

Development of Status L0g ReportActions Taken to Build More Collaborative

Process Plans for “Domain Dinners”

Provide opportunity to develop uniform measures Bring faculty together from different departments who teach

in same GE area Serve to “celebrate” assessment

PRESENTATION TO ASSOCIATION OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING OFFICERSBUFFALO, NEW YORKJUNE 11, 2009

How Campuses are Closing the GE

Assessment Loop: A GEAR Report