View
37
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Strategies for Implementing Reviews of Student Learning in a Decentralized Environment Sharon A. La Voy Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment. What We’ll Cover Today. History of assessment at UM UM challenges Structure UM put in place Resources made available - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Strategies for Implementing Reviews of Student Learning in a Decentralized Environment
Sharon A. La Voy
Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment
What We’ll Cover TodayHistory of assessment at UM
UM challenges
Structure UM put in place
Resources made available
Development of process
New campus context
Successes and lessons learned
Previous Assessment at UMSpecialized Accreditation
Engineering – ABET
Education – NCATE
Business – AACSB
Campus Assessment Working Group (CAWG)
Student satisfaction
Describing student experiences
Data-Supported DecisionsProgram reviews
Budget planning cycle
Task forces
Course evaluations
Middle States DevelopmentsPRR highlighted CAWG’s efforts
Team’s evaluation encouraged UM to make progress on learning outcomes
General lack of awareness of scope of this recommendation
Middle States numbers: Previous to new standard, 20-30% further review; post new standard, 70-80%
What is the New Expectation?Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
Assessment of student learning demonstrates that the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional goals and that students at graduation have achieved appropriate higher education goals.
An accredited institution is…
Characterized by…Articulated expectations of student learning at various levels (institution, degree/program, course) that are consonant with the institution’s mission
A plan that describes student learning assessment activities being undertaken at the institution
Evidence that assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning
Others Following SuitState pressures to conform to common standards
Modifications of professional school standards
Some at the University interested in telling our story in language other than input factors
Challenges to OvercomeFew strong research university examples, for understandable reasons
Threat of failed reaccreditation suspicious
Size of the institution
Common outcomes for Theater and Electrical Engineering?
Decentralized culture
Many TasksInstitution-wide common outcomes
And are these the same as our CORE general education program?
Program-specific outcomes
Course outcomes
Assessment of all
We began with what we could control…
A Centrally Validated Structure…
The Planning Team (two IR staff and four faculty administrators)The Deans Steering CommitteeThe Faculty Working GroupThe College Coordinator Committee
The Provost’s Commission on Learning Outcomes Assessment:
The Deans Steering CommitteeChaired by the Undergraduate DeanDeans of prominent colleges asked to serveWe work out details with themIntroduce decisions to Council of Deans and community with them already on boardThey nominated faculty to Working Group (we asked for strong faculty with vibrant research agendas)
The Faculty Working GroupChaired by the Undergraduate Dean
Tasked with writing outcomes for Middle States “Five Essential Elements” of an undergraduate education (in addition to Gen Ed and disciplines)
Met for a semester, reviewed other institutions’ goals, worked out language
Rolling Out to the ProgramsCould show progress at University level
Provost distributed Faculty Working Group results, and said ALL programs must follow
Back to Deans Steering Committee
Process has to be owned in the Colleges
I envisioned programs submitting centrally; but that would not honor College control
They appoint College Coordinator for each
College CoordinatorsSharing of experiences
Honest critique of all work
Peer review
Seminar-type discussions on issues
Ground rules for privacy and sharing work
College ProcessOrganize learning outcomes assessment process internally (College Coordinators and Deans)
Consider whether there are common College-wide outcome goals
Review department and program plans for consistency with College standards for quality
Submit all assembled Assessment Plans under the signature of the Dean to the Provost
Resources Made AvailablePlanning Team always available for presentations and consultations
Registration for local (thankfully) Middle States assessment conference funded
Learning outcomes workshops with nationally renowned speakers for Coordinators; all faculty and staff invited to keynote addresses
www.umd.edu/LearningOutcomes
DevelopmentsProgram Plans submitted in Spring 2006
400 plans split up among teams of Coordinators and reviewed using rubric
Coordinators provide written feedback instead of rubric results, deleting ‘judgments’
Overall and program specific feedback sent to Deans from Provost
DevelopmentsRevisions to plans submitted in Fall
Plans for assessments this academic year
Deans Steering Committee – Colleges decide how they do this within a 4 year cycle
Results and projected curriculum changes submitted in March, after accreditation visit
Reviewed by Coordinators, feedback given to colleges
Survey of CoordinatorsWhat was the most important experience you had in working
with your college?
The language of evaluation has changed in my college.There is a larger sense of a shared commitment to our
students.There is a shared sense of the value of articulating the
learning outcome goals.Faculty have been very cooperative.I have shared good ideas from other disciplines with my
college.We can meet our own needs and the needs of accrediting
agencies at the same time.
Survey of CoordinatorsWhat was most important to you in participating in the
College Coordinator group?
A well-directed and focused committee can get a lot done.A committed group can take on a challenging project, work
hard, and succeed.Communication across campus with different disciplines
increased my understanding.The assessment rubric for graduate programs that was
distributed helps us a lot.
Survey of CoordinatorsWhat was most problematic for you in this process?
Getting agreement on the assessment of graduate programs.Finding the time. Adding this to our workload.
Survey of CoordinatorsWhat is the overall result for you and your college?
There have been significant new conversations about how to change teaching.
Faculty have changed their syllabi.We wonder if the university will continue this process.
Successes and MilestonesUtilizing groups to their utmost capacity
College Coordinators act as community of scholars
Reported “brainwashing” of some as they come to understand value of learning outcomes assessment
CORE faculty committee saw benefits and established general education learning outcomes with little resistance
Examples of CORE outcomesDemonstrate critical analysis of arguments and evaluation of an argument’s major assertions, its background assumptions, the evidence used to support its assertions, and its explanatory utility
Understand and articulate the importance and influence of diversity within and among cultures and societies
CORE Assessment Milestones
In 2005, faculty groups articulated student learning outcomes for all CORE categories.
In 2006, faculty who teach CORE courses mapped their courses to published CORE outcomes by using “checklists.”
New Campus ContextNew programs
New CORE courses
Program Review
Focus on graduate programs
College-based development of assessment instruments and measures
Lessons LearnedIn one instance, not utilizing established structures for buy-in and gentle roll-out caused relative uproar
Successes in one venue will influence others
Giving up control of process is necessary
Utilizing existing structures essential
Questions, comments, and
discussion welcome!
Recommended