General Education Assessment Task Force

Charge: to develop and recommend a process for regular, cross-disciplinary, anonymous review of student artifacts as evidence of student learning outcomes (college-wide) for each of the college’s educational objectives.
During June 2014:

  1. Review rubrics previously developed by faculty cohort groups for general education assessment and decide on/revise /develop rubrics for college-wide use for each general education outcome.
  2. Read and score the artifacts collected in the 2013-14 Academies pilot (addressing the selected general education objective/outcomes for each Academy) and comment on use of the rubrics for this process.
  3. Develop a scale for reporting on the status of how well students have met each general education outcome.
  4. Create a status report for each of the general education outcomes to be presented to the Academic Senate in an interim report in the early fall 2014 semester.

September 2014 - May 2015:

  1. Present interim report on findings and progress to Academic Senate at its September meeting.
  2. Propose rubrics for regular use for assessing these objectives/outcomes, taking into account possible University assessment requirements for common core learning outcomes.
  3. Working in sub-committees, identify appropriate artifacts to be collected as evidence of student learning outcomes for each of the college’s educational objectives/outcomes.
  4. Propose mechanisms to conduct regular college-wide assessment of student learning outcomes for each of the College’s general education objectives, to regularly disseminate the outcomes, and to take action on findings
  5. Present an interim report to the Academic Senate for the December 2014 meeting.
  6. Establish second phase pilot collection of artifacts during Spring 2015 for assessment using the rubrics during June 2015.
  7. Facilitate college-wide discussion groups on findings and proposals
  8. Present proposals to the Curriculum Committee and Assessment Committee for consideration and for approval at the Academic Senate in May 2015.

Membership:
Karen Steele, Arthur Corradetti, Ian Beckford, representative from each academic department recommended by department chair, one representative from Senate Curriculum Committee and from Senate Assessment Committee
The task force will work 1-4 p.m. on M,T, Th during the first two weeks in June 2014 (June 2, 3, 5 and 9, 10, 12). Compensation for the work is $1,000 per faculty member. The task force will meet at least monthly during the academic year 2014-15 (including January), presenting an interim report to the Senate for the December meeting, and a final report for the May meeting.

Agenda for General Education Task Force Workshop June 2014

Week One, Day 1: Monday June 2nd

  • Rubric presentation
  • Form working groups
  • Discuss rubric articles and questions sent with articles

 

  • Review QCC Educational Outcome # 2 -  Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed decisions
  • Review Business Academy Assignments:
    • first assignment and artifact; second assignment and artifact
  • Review Business Academy rubric
  • Discuss how the example artifacts can be rated according to the Business Academy rubric
  • Discuss how well the example assignments provide an opportunity for students to demonstrate Educational Outcome #2

 

  • Discussion in groups regarding the extent to which the Business Academy rubric measures the General Education outcome#2: Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed decisions.
  • Suggestions for potential modifications to the rubric
  • Reflection questions (individual, written):
    • What did you learn about large-scale assessment today?
    • What surprised you in today’s process?
    • What did you notice about how your disciplinary knowledge affects your assessment?

Week One, Day 2: Tuesday June 3rd

  • Review STEM (Math) rubric and assignment
  • Discuss other rubrics for General Education #2 (VALUE rubric, QCC faculty cohort rubric)
  • Identify the most important dimensions to include in a rubric for Gen Ed #2
  • Modifying the rubric: In groups, write the rubric descriptions for each scale of one dimension
  • Whole group, write rubric descriptions for remaining dimensions

 

  • Norm to the modified rubric
  • Assess Business Academy artifacts using the modified rubric (data to be collected; analysis presented on Thursday)
  • Reflection questions:
    • Consider today’s activities – what was most helpful?
    • What was least helpful?
    • Is there something we’ve discussed that needs clarification?

Week One, Day 3: Thursday June 5th

  • Using the dimensions for the Analytical Reasoning rubric as modified on June 3, work in groups to write scale descriptions (0-4) for each dimension.  (Divide dimensions among the groups)
  • Whole group, discuss the scale descriptions
  • Norm to the modified rubric
  • Assess Business Academy artifacts using the modified rubric
  • Review results

 

  • Review Liberal Arts assignments
  • Assess Liberal Arts Academy artifacts using modified rubric (groups, two sets of five LA essays read by each group)
  • Review Results
  • Reflection questions:
    • What did you learn from the experience of creating the rubric?
    • What did you learn from the norming session?
    • What have you learned about how well students are achieving Educational Outcome #2 based on the evaluation of these artifacts?

Week Two, Day 1: Monday June 9th

  • Review Liberal Arts assignments
  • Assess Liberal Arts Academy artifacts using modified rubric
  • Review assessment results
  • Assess Business Academy artifacts using the modified rubric
  • Review assessment results
  • Consider a scale for reporting degree of overall performance for all artifacts assessed, for Educational Outcome #2 
  • Write up assessment of General Education outcome #2 (write segments in groups)
  • Describe the goal for the assessment processes we have been following
  • Describe the assessment process itself
  • Describe the findings from the assessment (i.e., rate the students’ performance)
  • What do the findings tell us about these artifacts?

Reflection questions:

  • What are the challenges in developing a scale for reporting the degree of overall performance for the artifacts that were assessed?
  • What kinds of courses and assignments are most appropriate for assessing outcome#2?
  • What are the challenges associated with writing a report that discusses the assessment of General Education outcome number 2?

Week Two, Day 2: Tuesday June 10th

  • Review modified rubric
  • Discuss the Integrative Rubric
  • Consider a scale for reporting degree of overall performance for all artifacts assessed, for Educational Outcome #2 
  • Write up assessment of General Education outcome #2 (write segments in groups)
  • Describe the goal for the assessment processes we have been following
  • Describe the assessment process itself
  • Describe the findings from the assessment (i.e., rate the students’ performance)
  • What do the findings tell us about these artifacts?

Reflection question:

  • What are the challenges associated with writing a report that discusses the assessment of General Education outcome number 2?

Week Two, Day 3: Thursday June 12th

  • Handouts
  • Come to consensus regarding the measurement scale
  • Complete the status  report
  • Next steps in the Fall-
  • Present status report on findings and progress to Academic Senate at its September meeting.
  • Propose rubrics for regular use for assessing these general education objectives/outcomes, taking into account possible University assessment requirements for common core learning outcomes.
  • Working in sub-committees, identify appropriate artifacts to be collected as evidence of student learning outcomes for each of the college’s educational objectives/outcomes. 
  • Propose mechanisms to conduct regular college-wide assessment of student learning outcomes for each of the College’s general education objectives, to regularly disseminate the outcomes, and to take action on findings
  • Present a recommendation report to the Academic Senate for the December 2014 meeting.
 

Membership:

Karen Steele (Interim Vice President for Strategic Planning, Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness), Arthur Corradetti (Dean for Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness), Ian Beckford Learning Outcomes Assessment Manager), representative from each academic department recommended by department chair, one representative from the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee and one from the Senate Assessment Committee

Academic Department representatives:

  • Academic Literacy – Julia Carroll
  • Art and Design – Pete Mauro
  • Biological Sciences and Geology - TBA
  • Business - TBA
  • Chemistry – Derek Bruzewicz
  • Engineering Technology – Craig Weber
  • English –Tanya Zhelezcheva
  • Foreign Languages and Literatures – Susana Alaiz-Losada (Fall 2014)
  • Health, Physical Education and Dance – Anthony Monahan
  • History – Ken Pearl
  • Library – Sheila Beck
  • Mathematics and Computer Science – Kostas Stroumbakis
  • Music – Neeraj Mehta (Fall 2014)
  • Nursing – Barbara Rome
  • Physics – Raul Armendariz
  • Social Sciences – Amy Traver
  • Speech Communication and Theatre Arts – Rosanne Vogel

Academic Senate representatives:

  • Senate Assessment Committee – Andrea Salis (Health, Physical Education and Dance)
  • Senate Curriculum Committee – Julia Carroll (Academic Literacy)