8.2.b     Student outcomes: general education

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results for student learning outcomes for collegiate-level general education competencies of its undergraduate degree programs.

Judgment

x   Compliance           o  Non-Compliance           o Partial Compliance

Narrative  

UL Lafayette identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which those outcomes are achieved, and provides evidence of seeking improvement; the University bases these evaluative efforts on the analysis of results of student learning outcomes for collegiate-level general education competencies in undergraduate degree programs. The core curriculum of 42 credit hours is based on a framework required by the Louisiana Board of Regents (BOR). Table 8.2.b – 1 shows the structure imposed by the Regents Core (left,) UL Lafayette’s set of core requirements and course options based on that structure (center), and associated Student Learning Objectives (right).

Table 8.2.b – 1: Comparison of BOR and UL Lafayette General Education Cores
with Learning Outcomes

Development of General Education Assessment

Prior to 2006, assessment of the University’s general education learning objectives was accomplished through a variety of indirect stakeholder (e.g., student, alumni, and employer) surveys and traditional institutional research metrics focused on core courses. While these metrics allowed the study of drop and progress/pass rates, withdrawal levels, syllabus review, certification and licensure exam pass rates, grade distributions, student evaluations, curriculum reviews, faculty qualifications reviews, and attainment of disciplinary accreditations, they did not include direct student learning measures or course-embedded assessments. 

The University’s General Education Committee was formed in 2006 in response to a developing understanding of the need to measure, direct, and improve student learning, and became a standing University committee housed in Academic Affairs in AY2008-2009. The membership of the committee has included representatives from the core areas, representatives from each college, the Provost, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, and the Director of Institutional Assessment. Recent proposals to revise and clarify membership were a focus of the committee in AY2018-2019. The General Education Committee exists to “…review, develop, and recommend policy regarding general education to the Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS), to recommend inclusion or exclusion of courses in the list of acceptable general education courses, and to participate constructively in assessment of the general education goals.”

Between 2006 and 2018, general education assessment at UL Lafayette was governed by a framework for direct general education assessment with six broad learning goals and specific student learning outcomes associated with each goal. Multiple instruments and measures were aligned with each goal, and indicators of success were established. This system relied on a combination of broad, standardized measures (MAPP, iskills, CLA, CEA, NSSE), and course-embedded assessments. It was structured centrally, with course-level data gathered in departments and sent to the Assistant Vice President for Institutional Planning and Effectiveness for analysis and action recommendations, as well as presented to the General Education Committee for comment and guidance.

In 2016, UL Lafayette acknowledged the limitations of this system: goals and learning outcomes were poorly aligned with the structure imposed by the BOR; reliance on standardized tests did not always accurately reflect the University’s own objectives or judgment of success; and analysis of results was undertaken apart from the faculty who taught the courses and evaluated the artifacts. Combined with changes in administrative oversight, these observations led to a comprehensive overhaul of both the general education core itself and the structure for its assessment.

2016-2018 Revisions

Between 2016 and 2018, the General Education Committee reviewed and updated the general education core, and redesigned the entire assessment structure including goals, objectives, measures, and targets, with the aim of:

·         Reexamining the goals and objectives of each discipline within the general education core;

·         Aligning the University’s assessment with the BOR’s general education scheme;

·         Decentralizing critical components of the institutional effectiveness cycle to enable faculty and departments to analyze, interpret, and act on data they gathered; and

·         Creating a robust system of assessment with broad acceptance that allows for continual measurement and rapid improvement based on results.

Committees were formed to address each disciplinary area of the core: Math, English, Science, Social and Behavioral Science, Humanities, Arts, and UNIV 100. Beginning in Fall 2016, each committee was charged with reviewing and revising the existing goals and objectives for the discipline. In some cases (such as Humanities) these revisions were major, while in others, the fundamental goals and objectives already in use were judged appropriate, or in need of only minor adjustments. The assessment subcommittee of the General Education Committee met twice a month over the same period to review, revise, and implement changes to the assessment schedule. These proposals were brought back to the General Education Committee and approved. The reformed structure was then approved by the University Committee on Academic Affairs and Standards (CAAS) and the Provost, and was adopted in the 2019-2020 Catalog, along with a procedure for making changes to the general education core.

Departments housing the courses were then charged with establishing new measures and targets where needed, and with carrying out the complete assessment process including identifying the assessment timeline, gathering and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and proposing and then implementing changes based on that data, and finally submitting a report to the Director of Institutional Assessment.  After review, the Director of Institutional Assessment submits the reports to the General Education Committee, which brings a University-wide perspective to the results and improvement narratives, and provides further recommendations as applicable.

Implementation

Under the new system, the assessment process in each discipline offering general education courses is directed by experts in that discipline, and each discipline, in turn, has a representative on the General Education Committee, regularly reporting assessment outcomes in their area and reporting the Committee’s feedback to their colleagues.

To accommodate the variety of student interests and transfer students, a wide variety of courses can potentially fulfill each general education requirement, but a smaller selection is recommended; a subset of those has been selected to be assessed based on their enrollments, frequency of offering,  proportion of non-major students, and alignment with the BOR general education requirements. Continuity among all courses satisfying a general education requirement is provided by shared goals and outcomes.

Completion of the cycle of assessments culminates in an assessment meeting in which lessons, thoughts, plans for improving learning, and specific revisions are weighed, discussed, and decided. Changes to goals, outcomes, assessments, and courses are submitted to the General Education Committee, which evaluates and approves the changes, or returns them to the assessment committee of the discipline for further refinement. Approved changes may be submitted to Academic Affairs and the CAAS, if they have an impact on the University Catalog. Submitted changes follow the approved procedure. Otherwise, the outcome of the review at the discipline and General Education Committee levels forms the basis for the next assessment cycle.

General education requirements apply to all students, including transfer and online students. Until 2018, the Admissions office and academic colleges were responsible for evaluating transfer students’ transcripts and awarding them credit for general education classes. Since then, general education credit has been evaluated in the Registrar’s office, using the Transfer Evaluation System (TES). The TES synthesizes college and university course catalogs from across the country to establish equivalency between courses and prescribed learning outcomes. This TES is supported, when necessary, by consultation with the relevant academic college or department. Once a student’s courses have been through the TES evaluation, the evaluated credit, including any general education credit, is shown on the UL Lafayette transcript. A record of this information is maintained on Degree Works, where it is possible to see the original name of the course and course number, and the school that originally granted the credit.

Examples of General Education Assessments and Improvements

The University has identified measures of expected student learning outcomes and assesses these outcomes annually, as illustrated in the following examples from each General Education discipline.

English Composition (First Year Writing)

The Department of English is responsible for assessing the general education of First Year Writing (FYW). Prior to 2016, the First Year Writing outcomes were taken from the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes for First-Year Composition: 1) Engage in writing as a complex and iterative process; 2) Recognize the structures of argument; 3) Use writing and reading for learning, thinking, and communicating; 4) Learn to respond to the needs of various audiences; 5) Discuss appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality; and 6) Integrate their ideas with those of others. To measure these outcomes, approximately 100 student papers were randomly selected from ENGL 101, 102, or 115 course sections, and evaluators reviewed and rated them using a common rubric.

In 2016, the outcomes, measure of assessment, and cycle of assessment changed. The revised outcomes (found in Table 8.2.b – 2) were measured by faculty reviewers who rated approximately 75-100 student portfolios from ENGL 101 and ENGL 102. These 25-page portfolios more accurately represented the skills and competencies of the students. Each portfolio is scored by two assessors (FYW instructors), and a norming session ensures rater reliability such that all assessors align their review to the evaluation criteria on the established rubric. The FYW Director enters and analyzes data, then generates and shares a report with the Department of English and the General Education Committee to discuss findings and improvement methods. For the assessment cycle, the FYW program assesses two of the six outcomes each year so that, in a given three-year period, all outcomes are assessed at least once.

Table 8.2.b – 2: First Year Writing General Education Outcomes

 

The two outcomes assessed in 2015-2016 were: Discuss appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality (outcome #5); and Integrate ideas with those of others (outcome #6). The First Year Writing program reviewed approximately 100 papers randomly selected from seven course sections of ENGL 102 and ENGL 115 and established a target of 70% of students to be rated as Satisfactory in the given categories. For outcome #5, this target was met; for outcome #6, this target was not met, though results tallied just below the 70% threshold. The results, when viewed by section, indicated possible reviewer perceptions and biases. Based on this analysis, several changes were proposed and implemented. First, the FYW Director revised the Freshman Guide, a required text for English 101 and 102; the Guide includes the revised outcomes and aligned rubrics. Faculty who teach FYW were reminded to call students’ attention to the rubrics often in class, and to use them in grading student work. Second, changes were made to faculty development for FYW teachers, particularly those on graduate assistantships. Mandatory monthly meetings are held for graduate assistants to learn about and discuss the pedagogical strategies for the outcomes to be currently assessed, as well as for outcomes that will be assessed in later cycles. Third, the FYW program moved from assessing individual student papers to portfolios of student work, a recognized best practice. This change to reviewing portfolios allowed for a more complete view of student writing and competency. Finally, FYW adjusted the sampling method; rather than assessing the program based on the instruction of only a few teachers (e.g., six in the 2015-2016 cycle), FYW will gather portfolios from a random sample of the students across all sections.

The newly created outcomes were assessed for the first time in 2016-2017. The two outcomes assessed in 2016-2017 were:

·         Develop facility in responding to a variety of situations and contexts calling for purposeful skills in voice, tone, level of formality, design, medium, and/or structure; and

·         Use strategies–such as interpretation, synthesis, response, critique, and design/redesign–to compose texts that integrate the writer’s ideas with those from appropriate sources.

The target for each of these outcomes was 70% of students to score satisfactory or higher. For ENGL 101, the results were just barely under 70% for each outcome. For ENGL 102, the results were slightly over 75% for each outcome. In the FYW curriculum, ENGL 102 is dedicated to research-based writing from sources. Therefore, it was expected that the results would be lower in ENGL 101 compared to 102. Assessment of the research-based outcomes in the ENGL 101 sample are considered a baseline reading. The improvement shown in ENGL 102 demonstrates the value of experience and practice of writing, plus the effectiveness of a curriculum devoted to these issues. Based on this analysis, several changes were proposed and implemented. First, new assignments will be designed for the curriculum, which align to these outcomes. Additionally, an updated common syllabus with ready assignment documents will provide support to teachers. These assignments are to be introduced in recurring department workshops and in resources and notices distributed through Moodle.

The two outcomes assessed in 2017-2018 were:

·         Locate and evaluate (for credibility, sufficiency, accuracy, timeliness, bias, and so on) primary and secondary research materials, including journal articles and essays, books, scholarly and professionally established and maintained databases or archives, and informal electronic networks and internet sources; and

·         Practice applying citation conventions systematically in their own work.

The target for each of these outcomes was 70% of student portfolios evaluated (ENGL 101 and 102) and rated as Satisfactory or higher. Seventy-five students were selected randomly to have their portfolios assessed; of these, only 49 were submitted and assessed. For the first outcome (“Locate and evaluate …”), only 59% of the student portfolios were rated as Satisfactory or higher. For the second outcome (“Practice applying citation…”), 71% were rated as Satisfactory or higher. After analyzing these results, the FYW program identified two areas of improvement. First, a program-wide assignment, the Source Dialogue, was identified and implemented as a systematic approach to evaluating the quality of sources (supporting the “Locate and evaluate…” outcome). Workshops, sample student work, and other supporting documentation were provided to graduate assistants assigned to the ENGL 101 and 102 sequence. Additionally, to address the “Practice applying citation…” outcome, the FYW program identified that the main area needing improvement was in-text citations, those citations embedded in the students’ writing, rather than the lists of references at the ends of writing projects. To address this finding, the FYW program will expand training on in-text citation techniques during the pedagogy seminars for graduate assistants. 

Mathematics

The Mathematics general education goal is for students to “analyze quantitative information in order to solve problems and understand the world.” Two objectives support this goal:

·         Use mathematical methods and models to solve quantitative problems and to communicate solutions effectively; and

·         Analyze and critically evaluate numerical and graphical data to draw reasonable and valid conclusions about real-world solutions.

Since Fall 2011, the Math department has assessed the MATH sequence 103/104 and MATH 105 courses each Fall and Spring. In 2017-2018, the department added STAT 214 to its assessment process. In each of these courses, common questions are embedded in the final exam; these questions are designed to measure how effectively the Math general education goals are achieved. The objectives are considered met if 70% of students score 60% or higher. Table 8.2.b – 3 demonstrates the percentage of students who scored 60% or higher for the three most recent assessment cycles.

Table 8.2.b – 3: Mathematics General Education Percentage of Students Scoring at least 60% or higher

 

The Mathematics department analyzed the results of the course-embedded assessments over the past six semesters and compared the results with many other factors. In 2016-2017, when the goal was not met, the department identified that too many students waited to access math resources (such as tutoring) until late in the semester. To address this, the department planned to increase its outreach to inform students about available tutoring resources. The goal in 2017-2018 was also not met; upon additional analysis the department identified two potentially positive elements. First, the pass rates for MATH 103, MATH 105, and STAT 214 are consistent over the past six semesters and show that an appropriate number of students are passing the courses; however, the course-embedded assessments do not reflect this. Second, the Math department currently uses multiple questions that cover a broad range of topics (rather than one or two specific questions) to assess the outcomes and objectives. Consequently, the results of the embedded questions have an approximately normal distribution (consistently true for the past six semesters). As a result, the department revised the criteria in upcoming assessment cycles, and is optimistic that the revised criteria will provide more realistic data about student learning related to general education Mathematics courses. Though pending, the initial results for the 2018-2019 cycle show improvement in these percentages.

Social and Behavioral Sciences

The social and behavioral sciences general education goal is for students to “apply critical thought and scientific principles to understanding human behavior and society in a diverse world.” The following objectives support this goal:

·         SB1: Evaluate data, evidence, and arguments using discipline-specific theory and methods. 

·         SB2: Identify theories in the discipline relevant to understanding human behavior and society.

·         SB3: Distinguish the forces shaping human behavior and society.

·         SB4: Describe relations among individuals, groups, and society, utilizing discipline-specific terminology.

·         SB5: Recognize the significance of individual, cultural, and societal diversity.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, representatives from various departments responsible for teaching behavioral science courses worked together to design a systematic plan for assessing these objectives. Each department (Anthropology, Criminal Justice, Economics, Geography, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology) developed and used its own set of questions to test students on one or more of these outcomes as relevant to the discipline. The first assessments utilizing these new assessment plans were conducted in 2017-2018; assessments were conducted in the courses listed in Table 8.2.b – 4, and the results and improvement narratives are explained below the table.

Table 8.2.b – 4: Map of Social and Behavioral Sciences Objectives and Point of Assessment

 

Anthropology assessed all five objectives through a series of essays in ANTH 100. For each objective to be considered met, 70% of students’ essays were expected to be rated as proficient or higher. Overall, 69% of students scored as proficient or higher when looking at all objectives. However, there is some variability when examining the specific objectives. Students demonstrated proficiency in SB1 (70%), SB2 (76%), and SB5 (80%). The results for SB3 (56%) and SB4 (60%) indicate that although some students are doing well, faculty must increase efforts in teaching and demonstrating the material related to these objectives. The measures and criteria remain for 2018-2019.

Criminal Justice assessed two of the five objectives. The measure for objective SB3 was a final paper, and for objective SB4 was embedded questions in quizzes and exams. In Fall 2017, 93% scored at least 60% or better on the essay measuring objective SB3, while 96.25% achieved 60% or better on the subset of questions measuring objective SB4. In Spring 2018, 82% scored at least 60% or better on the essay measuring objective SB3, while 82% achieved 60% or better on the subset of questions measuring objective SB4. The department reviewed and analyzed these initial results and decided to create a pool of questions for SB4; instructors can choose to use these questions when customizing their courses. The measures and criteria remain for 2018-2019.

Economics assessed four of the five objectives. Each objective was assessed using a series of multiple- choice test items, administered in five sections of ECON 300 to a total of 130 students. The measure of success was the percentage of students who correctly answered items at each level: 90% at or above “minimal” (no more than 10% below); 80% at or above “moderate” (no more than 20% below); 70% at or above “proficient” (no more than 30% below); and 65% “advanced” (no more than 35% below). For objective SB1, 91.5% were marked as proficient; SB2, 87% were marked as proficient; SB3, 89.2% were marked as proficient; and SB4, 95.4% were marked as proficient. These results generally exceeded expectations; as such, the test items can be strengthened for rigor, at least in the proficient and advanced levels. Repeated assessment will lead to a more effective assessment instrument; as more meaningful data is generated in subsequent cycles, the faculty will consider improvements to ECON 300 to better serve this student population.

Geography assessed all five objectives in GEOG 103 using specific embedded questions in regular course assessments. The target for success was for 75% of students to correctly answer the embedded assessment question. The first three objectives (SB1, SB2, SB3) were assessed in two sections of GEOG 103 in Fall 2017, while the remaining two objectives (SB4, SB5) were assessed in two sections of GEOG 103 in Spring 2018. Overall, results indicate that a significant number of students were successful at meeting the stated objectives. In Fall 2017, 85% of students achieved success with SB1, 82% with SB2, and 79% with SB3. In Spring 2018, 85% of students achieved success with SB4 and 75% with SB5. The faculty discussed these results and agreed that the 75% threshold for success was a reasonable desired outcome. Additionally, the faculty plans to embed a greater number of questions into the assessments to more accurately measure success. To better coordinate this improvement across different instructors, the plan is to build a test bank of questions that assess each objective.

Political Science assessed all five objectives using questions embedded in POLS 110 exams. A total of five course sections (two in Fall 2017 and three in Spring 2018) delivered the assessments to a total of 166 students. There were 10 questions in total on the assessment. Because the assessment was short, only the total number of correct answers is reported rather than results disaggregated by learning objective. The criterion for success was an average score of six out of 10 questions answered correctly (60% constitutes a passing score for an introductory course). The assessment fell just short of meeting the target. The average score for all 166 tests was 5.5 correctly answered questions, just missing the target of an average of six correct questions. Breaking down the results further, 44.6% of students earned a score of five or less, while 55.4% of students earned a passing grade of six or more. Put differently, the majority of students enrolled in the course earned a passing grade on the assessment. The Political Science faculty identified three main areas of improvement. First, the department is undertaking a review of the questions to determine on which questions students had the weakest performance. The POLS 110 instructors will be asked to consider whether those questions should be rewritten for clarity or whether additional classroom instruction time should be devoted to teaching concepts. Second, additional questions will be developed to better assess each of the five learning objectives. This will allow for results to be reported for each learning objective in the 2018-2019 cycle. Third, the General Education assessment was administered separately from the typical POLS 110 departmental assessment, also given in the final two weeks of the semester. There is concern that students experienced assessment fatigue from taking two assessments in a single class period. To counter this possibility, the General Education assessment questions are to be embedded in the POLS 110 departmental assessment; however, the questions will be analyzed separately by the Assessment Coordinator. Given that the target was nearly met and given the planned improvements detailed here, the target should be met during the 2018-2019 assessment cycle.

Psychology assessed all five objectives using questions embedded in PSYC 110 and PSYC 115 (honors) exams. Students were administered a pre- and post-test, and the scores were used to measure success of the objectives. In both courses, a significant improvement was demonstrated between the scores on the pre- and post-tests. Overall, for PSYC 110, the pre-test score was 12.25 and the post-test score was 17.97; for PSYC 115, the pre-test score was 13.88 and the post-test score was 16.61. After initial review, the department of Psychology intends to focus on increasing the number of students who participate in the assessment to generate more data for analysis.

Sociology assessed all five objectives using 10 multiple choice questions embedded in all SOCI 100 exams. Success was measured by the percentage of students who answered the assessment item correctly; the objective is met when at least 60% of students answered the assessment item correctly. Overall, students met the general education objectives as 71% of students across the assessment year answered correctly across the 10 assessment items. Some assessment items in some semesters did not achieve the benchmark. For example, Item Three, which assesses SB3, did not achieve the benchmark during Spring 2018. Despite this, SB3 is successful on other assessment items (Items One, Two, and 10) and across the year for this item. Similarly, Item Six, which assesses SB1 and SB2, did not achieve the benchmark during Fall 2017, but SB1 and SB2 are successful on other assessment items (Items One, Four, Eight & Nine) and across the year for this item. The only assessment item that failed to meet the benchmark for the year was Item Seven, which assesses SB4. However, SB4 is successful on another assessment item (Item Nine). Overall, students in this course are demonstrating proficiency; however, there is some variability when examining the specific assessment items by instructor and semester. The results indicate that the department must ensure that individual instructors remember to assess the items each semester (one instructor forgot to assess any items one semester; others erred in assessing all items or in the wording of the item, which required omission of the result from this assessment cycle). Individual instructor results also indicate that the delivery method for the course itself may be related to learning objectives. Specifically, online courses, and instances in face-to-face courses in which access to content materials is unrestricted (e.g., online examinations without proctoring services) may have an artificially high result in comparison to closed-book, face-to-face, proctored assessments. The department plans to increase efforts to teach and demonstrate the material related to these objectives, regardless of the delivery style of the course content.

Natural Sciences (Biological and Physical)

The general education goal for the Natural Sciences is for students to be able “to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and have a sufficient knowledge base to be familiar with the power and limitations of science as related to contemporary concepts.” Two objectives support this goal:

·         Apply key processes and scientific reasoning to draw reasonable conclusions within the natural sciences.

·         Use critical and logical thinking, knowledge of accepted scientific methods, and appropriate sources to evaluate the credibility of information with scientific content.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, the College of Sciences designed a systematic plan for assessing these objectives in various courses. In each assessment cycle, a total of two courses from each department (Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, Geology, and Physics) were assessed. While each department developed and used its own set of questions to test students on these outcomes, there were consistent guidelines for developing questions and a rubric for evaluation. The first assessments utilizing these new assessment plans were conducted in 2017-2018, with results explained in Table 8.2.b – 5.

Table 8.2.b – 5: Natural Sciences Assessment Results

 

Humanities (Literature and Humanities, Historical Perspectives, Communication and Language)

The College of Liberal Arts is responsible for assessing the University’s general education goals in the areas of literature and humanities, historical perspectives, and communication and language. The overall humanities goal states that “students will think critically, creatively, and independently to understand themselves and others as members of their local, regional, and global communities, and to appreciate a wide variety of cultural expressions.” Each area is responsible for identifying objectives and appropriate measures of assessment to support this goal:

·         Literature and Humanities: Read, interpret, and write cogently and critically about diverse literary and cultural texts.

·         Historical Perspectives: Demonstrate an awareness of diverse historical perspectives and their significance for the present.

·         Communication and Language: Communicate effectively in verbal language.

The department of English assesses students’ ability to “read, interpret, and write cogently, creatively, and critically about diverse literary and cultural texts.” A new assessment protocol for this objective began in 2017-2018, with input from the English department’s assessment committee. The committee opted to try, first, a syllabus assessment to determine if students were expected to engage diverse literary and cultural texts. A rubric was created, and the target was set as an average of 2.0 (Meets Expectations) for all courses assessed. For 2017-2018, all available syllabi (41 total) for ENGL 201, 202, 205, 206, 210, 211, and 212 courses taught in the Spring 2018 semester were assessed. The assessment committee was made up of three English faculty, who assessed syllabi in two areas: diversity of perspective (DP) and diversity of forms/genres (DF). When assessing DP, the committee asked whether, to the extent possible, instructors incorporated texts either by writers from traditionally marginalized groups or by non-canonical writers. For DF, the committee asked whether the course incorporated texts from multiple forms/genres or from various media: poetry, novels, non-fiction, film, music, etc. The committee expected that the English department’s course offerings reflected the belief that there is more than one kind of writer, more than one way to write, and more than one form such writing can take.

Neither of the two objectives was met. The average score across all courses was 1.6 in DP and 1.6 in DF. The breakdown by course is listed in Table 8.2.b – 6.

Table 8.2.b – 6: Diversity Assessment

 

Upon identifying the course with the lowest score (ENGL 202), the committee immediately worked to address this through the department’s mentorship program and through meetings with the sophomore literature committee. Additionally, peer-led workshops for all instructors who will teach or are already teaching these courses are scheduled. The workshop will address successful strategies for incorporating a diversity of literary perspectives, forms, and genres. Finally, the committee intends to publish several “model” syllabi for each course.

The committee also recognized one important caveat to these findings that negatively impacted the scores: several instructors did not include a reading schedule or a list of texts. The committee could not assess the diversity of the readings in these classes, but decided to assign the syllabi a score of “1” on the rubric nonetheless. A list of readings is now required in all syllabi, which will enhance future assessment.

The department of History assesses students’ ability to compare and contrast different perspectives as demonstrated by the following: 1) identify a historical source as either a primary or secondary source; 2) recognize that a primary source has an author with a perspective; and 3) infer how the perspective or life circumstances of the author might influence the content of the source. The department generated two versions of a skills-based standardized exam that required no prior knowledge of historical content. On the exam, students were required to read an excerpt from a primary source, and then answer three multiple-choice questions. All instructors of HIST 100, 101, 102, 221, and 222 were provided the exam questions at the beginning of the Spring 2018 semester and were asked to distribute the quiz to all sections of these classes at the end of the semester. There was no identifying information on the quizzes; students and instructors remained anonymous. The assessment coordinator then graded a random sample of the submitted quizzes, approximately 10% of each version. The established target was an 80% pass rate, with “passing” equivalent to receiving 65% on the exam (two out of three questions correct).

In total, 715 completed assessments were collected from 10 (out of 29) sections. The department also received and mistakenly included assessments from two sections of honors-level History courses. Although the honors-level courses could potentially skew results, the low enrollment numbers for honors classes makes this a negligible factor. Overall, the low completion rate could be due to poor communication of expectations to all instructors in the History department, especially to contingent faculty; instructors lacking the time to complete the assessments in class; or students dropping out of or not attending class the day of the assessment.

The results indicated that 78.9% of the students passed by answering two of the three questions correctly, just below the established target:

·         Competency 1 (“Identify a historical source…”): 70% of students passed

·         Competency 2 (“Recognize that a primary source…”): Not assessed that year 

·         Competency 3 (“Infer how the perspective…”): 77.5% of students passed

Students struggled most with the first competency, though the department had initially assumed that this would be the most accessible. However, upon reflection, the low success rate for this competency is consistent with previous departmental assessments of History BA students, who also struggled with this skill. Going forward, the department intends to provide better guidance and training for all general education instructors to teach the difference between primary and secondary sources in their classes. The department included an ungraded question on a quiz that asked students to explain qualitatively why the provided source was primary or secondary. Many of these answers correctly defined a primary source, and/or provided logical reasons for the choice (even if the choice was incorrect).

To streamline the assessment process and to encourage higher completion rates, the department is considering asking general education instructors to assess just one (rather than all) of their general education courses. For instructors who teach two or more general education classes, this could save valuable instruction time; for the assessment committee, this may streamline the process by collecting only those assessments that will be analyzed. Finally, the department is considering alternating the assessment of general education objectives, rather than assessing all each semester. A full calendar is proposed for Fall 2018, which has built-in communication with faculty throughout the semester. Overall, the results have highlighted the opportunity to create more clear and measurable learning objectives for the entire department, and to communicate these more effectively to all History instructors.

The University’s communication and language objective is assessed in courses offered through the departments of Communication, Modern Languages, and Theater. Previously, the goal was assessed by the departments of English, Communication, and Theater, utilizing a standard rubric to assess the stated objectives. As part of the revised general education goals, the new departments agreed to identify the best assessments and targets appropriate for each discipline, while addressing the overall goal to “communicate effectively in verbal language.” Communication and Theater still share a rubric, while Modern Languages has a different assessment method.

The department of Communication assessed this goal by evaluating student speeches in CMCN 100 using a rubric that focused on six competencies: organization, subject knowledge, nonverbal communication, mechanics (when appropriate), speaker engagement, and elocution. Two scorers evaluated 20% of the students enrolled in CMCN 100 for 2017-2018. The target was considered met if 70% of the students evaluated scored a “satisfactory” (17 out of 24 possible points, or 70%).

In Fall 2017, 72% of the students assessed earned a score of 70% or higher, and in Spring 2018, 84% of students assessed earned a score of 70% or higher. For the Fall 2017 semester, the outcome was met; however, the students tended to have more difficulty remembering subject knowledge and occasionally struggled with speaker engagement.

Prior to and through the Fall 2017 semester, the class was taught using the textbook as its guide for laying out the order in which information was taught. Because of this, public speaking, which was the focus of this assessment, was not taught to students until Chapter 6, which occurred approximately half-way through the semester. In teaching the course in this manner, students did not have more than a couple of weeks to pick a topic, collect research for that topic, and deliver speeches. While they were able to do this and still meet objectives for the course, it appeared they were struggling more than was necessary. Additionally, they did not have as many opportunities to practice giving speeches, which ultimately impacted their ability to engage audiences due to a lack of confidence. After noting this, it became apparent that a change needed to be implemented in how the course was taught. Therefore, in the Spring 2018 semester, chapters six through twelve, which contain the exploration of public communication, was moved up to the third week of class. Students were also given additional opportunities for impromptu speeches to enhance overall confidence with public speaking and audience engagement. In making these small changes, student scores improved a great deal, particularly in the areas of subject knowledge and speaker engagement.

Given the success of rearranging the order in which material was taught to students throughout the semester, the plan is to continue with this course of action in future semesters. Now that these two areas of assessment have been addressed, the plan includes working with students on organization of speeches and helping to connect the material to the audience using stronger arguments while developing stronger speaker credibility. One way to do this is to implement peer-reviewed outline writing workshops in lab classes that would allow students to have work reviewed by the same peers who serve as their audience for these speeches. This approach would help students better understand the role of relationship building between the speaker and audience member, while developing their writing skills and creating better organized arguments.

The department of Music and Performing Arts assessed this goal by evaluating student speeches in THEA 261 using a similar rubric that focused on five competencies: organization, subject knowledge, nonverbal communication, speaker engagement, and elocution. Two scorers evaluated 20% of the students enrolled in THEA 261 for 2017-2018. The target was considered met if 80% of the students evaluated scored a “satisfactory” (specifically, 14 out of 20 possible points, or a 70%). In Spring 2018, 100% of the students assessed earned a score of 70% or higher. The areas of greatest strength among the assessed students were organization and subject knowledge (as reflected in ability to show an understanding of the circumstances of the scene, the relationship between characters, and the ability to perform the script as written through memorization of the script). The areas of non-verbal communication, speaker engagement, and elocution (while still assessed fairly strongly) were less consistent across the assessed population.

Even though all students assessed in 2017-2018 met the standard, the sample size was very small. For this assessment cycle, the students assessed were enrolled in a traditional 15-week delivery of the course. In the future, the department will assess students in each semester of the course and will include assessment of students in both traditional (15-week) and compressed (seven-week) schedules. With that additional data, the department will be able to draw more meaningful conclusions about ways to improve student skills in the execution of their scene work, and to see more clearly what adjustments to instructional methods and schedules for the compressed delivery version of the course might be necessary.

The department of Modern Languages assessed this goal by evaluating final exams in FREN 101, SPAN 101, and GERM 101 using a standard rubric provided by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines. The department maintains that students should be able to function at the Novice High level of language proficiency according to the most recent ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. The target is for 80% of students to score 70% or higher. Table 8.2.b – 7 lists the results for 2017-2018.

Table 8.2.b – 7: Modern Languages Communication Assessment Results 2017-2018

 

After initial analysis and discussion, the department determined that the German final exams were not stringent enough to adequately test for all aspects of the Novice High sublevel standards, which explains why student scores exceeded the criteria established. These exams are being adjusted to be more appropriate to stated goals. Additionally, the French and Spanish final exams nearly achieved the desired outcome. The department plans to increase outreach to students in order to inform them of available resources (including free tutoring in the language lab and instructors’ office hours).

Fine Arts

The College of the Arts maintains a comprehensive assessment of its general education course offerings. The college’s assessment committee meets annually to review general education goals and findings, and to design improvement plans based on reflection and analysis. The overall Arts goal is for students to recognize basic components of, or create, a particular art form and understand the art form in the context of its creation, or in the relationship of its basic components to the whole. To measure this goal, the College of the Arts annually assesses two sets of three supporting outcomes using course-embedded assessments in the college’s Academic Overview courses and Applied courses. For a student to meet Art general education goals, one set of objectives must be met; that is, either the three Academic Overview objectives or the three Applied objectives must be met, depending on whether the student is studying or making art, respectively. For each of the outcomes assessed in Academic Overview courses, the target was 70% of students answering specific course-embedded questions correctly. For each of the outcomes assessed in Applied courses, the target was that students score at least a 3.5 out of five on the relevant scoring rubric. Table 8.2.b – 8 demonstrates the achievement of each outcome for the three most recent assessment cycles.

Table 8.2.b – 8: Fine Arts General Education Outcomes and Results

 

The College of the Arts assessment committee relies on the departments hosting the Academic Overview and Applied courses to develop and implement improvements based on annual assessment results. For the Visual Arts department, an analysis of several years of “met” results has prompted faculty to create additional questions for students to identify at least three important aspects and dimensions of a single work of art. After piloting these additional questions in 2017-2018, the faculty have decided to include them in the assessment process going forward. The results from these expanded questions will determine whether students can apply the knowledge gained from studied examples to pieces that they have never studied before, providing greater insight into overall student achievement of the Fine Arts goals. For Performing Arts and Music, the faculty have prioritized increasing the response rate to obtain 100% participation in all course sections for general education assessment. Additionally, for Music, faculty were given the option to swap musical examples in those cases where the new example would serve the same purpose. While the testing instrument remained unchanged, the flexibility allowed faculty to focus on examples they were most comfortable teaching. 

·         Arts Assessment 2015-2016

·         Arts Assessment 2016-2017

·         Arts Assessment 2017-2018

First-Year Experience

The Freshman Seminar (UNIV 100) began assessing students’ information literacy in 2017-2018, using the results as a benchmark to create future objectives and criteria. The Office of First-Year Experience (OFYE) determined that a student should be able to assess what information is needed for a particular project; know where and how to find that information (either in the library or from online resources); evaluate that information and its source critically; and know how to use that information in an ethical manner. Pre- and post-tests were created to address these objectives. Table 8.2.b – 9 demonstrates the results from the 2017-2018 baseline data.

Table 8.2.b – 9: First-Year Experience General Education Results

 

These initial results indicated that most students were not making significant improvement in information literacy during the semester.

·         FYE Assessment 2017-2018

To understand these results, OFYE found that many of the volunteer faculty were not addressing the necessary materials. Several changes were implemented for Fall 2018 to address these findings. First, in Fall 2018, a new program (“FYE FYI”) was piloted. In this program, trained staff members from OFYE visited all 120 sections of UNIV 100 to deliver specific content not only in the area of information literacy, but also in other areas critical to first-year student success. This plan allowed UNIV 100 faculty, who are all experts in their respective fields, to concentrate on their content, while OFYE staff supplemented course instruction by providing consistent support content. Additionally, the general education goals for UNIV 100 were modified beginning in 2018-2019 as follows:

·         Engage in University‐level inquiry that challenges students to formulate appropriate questions, investigate potential answers, and arrive (at least tentatively) at solutions.

·         State clearly and defend orally and in writing ideas, arguments, and research questions.

·         Independently investigate answers to questions posed in the course, learn to find information, and critically assess the relevance and value of that information vis‐à‐vis the questions posed, as well as formulate new questions based on the initial inquiry.

Revised assessment measures are being designed and implemented to support these student learning outcomes.

 

Supporting Documents

Academic Affairs Policy 2.16 Louisiana Board of Regents

Anthropology Assessment 2017-2018

Approval of GenEd Revision

Arts Assessment 2015-2016

Arts Assessment 2016-2017

Arts Assessment 2017-2018

Arts GenEd Agenda

Biology Assessment 2017-2018

CAAS Minutes – Assessment Matrix Approval

Catalog GenEd 2019-2020

Chemistry Assessment 2017-2018

Communication Rubric

Communications Assessment 2017-2018

Criminal Justice Assessment 2017-2018

Economics Assessment 2017-2018

English Composition Assessment 2015-2016

English Composition Assessment 2016-2017

English Composition Assessment 2017-2018

Environmental Sciences Assessment 2017-2018

FYE Assessment 2017-2018

GenEd AA Web

GenEd Assess Matrix Highlighted

GenEd Assessment Matrix

GenEd Committee List 2018-2019

GenEd Matrix 2006-18

GenEd Membership Change

GenEd Minutes – Minor Goal and Objective Adjustments

GenEd Minutes – Revise and Implement Changes to the Assessment Schedule

GenEd Minutes – Revising Existing Goals and Objectives

GenEd Minutes – Robust System of Assessment

General Education Plan: Behavioral and Social Sciences

General Education Plan: Natural Sciences

Geography Assessment 2017-2018

Geology Assessment 2017-2018

History Assessment 2017-2018

Humanities Goal Changes

Letter Creating GenEd

Literature Assessment 2017-2018

Mathematics Assessment 2016-2017

Mathematics Assessment 2017-2018

Modern Languages Assessment 2017-2018

Physics Assessment 2017-2018

Political science Assessment 2017-2018

Procedure GenEd Changes

Psychology Assessment 2017-2018

Sample Assessment Calendar

Sample Degree Works Audits

Sample Systematic Plan

Sample TES Evaluations

Sociology Assessment 2017-2018

Statewide General Education Requirements

Theater Assessment 2017-2018

Transcript Examples