General Education Program Review External Review Report

(1)

General Education Program Review

External Review Report

Submitted by:

Helen L. Chen

Research Scientist, Stanford University

Philip C. Darby

Associate Professor, Biology, University of West Florida

Kevin P. Kern

Assistant Professor, Theatre, University of West Florida

Felicia N. Morgan

Assistant Professor, Marketing and Economics, University of West Florida

Kimberly M. Tatum

Assistant Dean and Associate Professor, Legal Studies, University of West Florida

(2)

2

Executive Summary

10 Key Questions Raised by the GEAR Committee

1. _{Does General Education (GE) at UWF align well with institutional goals and}

objectives?

Yes, the mission of the General Education program at UWF as stated below is aligned with institutional goals and objectives. However, based on our discussions with students, faculty, and staff, in order for this vision to be realized, better communication about the purpose of general education and how these courses serve the institution is needed. This communication should be addressed to all general education stakeholders – students, faculty and instructors, adjuncts, graduate teaching assistants, student services staff, administration – and should be reiterated and reinforced across all general education courses, program orientations and related events,

marketing materials, and campus publications.

Mission: The University of West Florida General Education Program will provide students with

a cohesive and broad knowledge and appreciation of the arts and sciences, an understanding of the connections between knowledge of different kinds and how such knowledge is attained, and the basic knowledge and skills they need to succeed in their university studies.

2. _{What administrative structure(s) might be developed to allow for effective faculty}

and administrative oversight of GE?

We agree with the recommendation from the GEAR Task Force that a single individual should have oversight of general education at UWF in partnership or consultation with the General Studies Committee (GSC). While the College of Arts and Sciences oversees the majority of GE courses, this curricula is in service to institutional goals including those within the Colleges of Business and Professional Studies. We propose that this person report directly to the Provost perhaps as a member of the Deans’ Council.

In this revised governance structure, the GSC would have a stronger role in directly informing pedagogical and curricular decisions regarding the GE program. Given that the GSC has representation from all three colleges and extensive knowledge of the general education curriculum, it is uniquely qualified to partner and consult with the individual overseeing GE. As the campus advocates for General Education, some of their responsibilities might include conducting outreach activities to faculty and instructors as well as students, department chairs, deans, support service staff, and other stakeholders. In addition, they could also develop

(4)

4

faculty and instructors who are currently teaching or planning to teach a GE course addressing such topics as:

o Introducing the GE program goals and how the curricula fits into the broader educational mission of the university

o Describing the criteria and process by which courses are added and removed from the GE curricula

o Outlining how assessment activities support and inform continuous improvement of the program

o Providing an overview of campus resources for developing GE courses (online and face-to-face) and support for teaching, learning, and assessment in the GE curricula 3. _{What structures and policies need to be developed to assure adequate assessment of}

GE?

Assessment of GE learning outcomes will be one of the responsibilities of the individual overseeing the program. The GE overseer should have the authority and the support from the senior administration to implement an assessment process that all departments and programs teaching GE courses would be required to participate in and contribute to.

Adequate assessment of GE will require support and resources aimed specifically at issues and questions related to effective assessment in general education. While most faculty feel confident assessing their majors in upper division courses within their discipline, some are less certain about how to assess non-majors who are taking a broad survey course in their field in order to fulfill a GE requirement.

Support for GE assessment could take the form of expanding the services of the Center for University Teaching, Learning, & Assessment (CUTLA) or appointing an assessment manager who could work with CUTLA and/or Institutional Research and Effectiveness Support (IRES). Some of the responsibilities of this assessment manager that would be specific to GE might include:

• Responding to requests from faculty and department chairs for assistance to develop assessment plans and identify tools that are appropriate for their GE courses and their discipline

• Providing models for the design of assessment research projects to explore questions of interest to the department and demonstrating how the findings can inform decisions about GE courses and the students who take these courses

• Building personal relationships with the chairs and assessment liaisons of GE departments through individual consultations and other outreach activities such as showcasing best practices around campus as well as nationally, as examples for other departments and programs

(5)

5

4. _{Is the current GE Domains Matrix adequate and reflective of desired learning}

outcomes?

There is general acceptance of the GE Domains Matrix as representing the set of learning outcomes and skills that students will have achieved after completing the GE curriculum. However, from our discussions with faculty, and in particular, adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants, there is a lack of clear understanding of how the cells in the Academic Foundation Domains Matrix are defined, operationalized at the course level, and how they should be

measured. From the perspective of the individual faculty member, it would be helpful to have a “big picture” perspective of how his/her individual course fits within and supports the mission of the GE curriculum as a whole. Again, formal oversight GE program could map specific courses to the sixteen learning outcomes within the matrix and highlight where additional coverage is needed.

The individual overseeing GE should review and revise (if necessary) the GE Domains Matrix to make sure it reflects the desired learning outcomes of the program and the institution. This review should also take into consideration other models of General Education learning outcomes such the Essential Learning Outcomes from the Association of American Colleges and

Universities (http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/EssentialOutcomes_Chart.pdf) and the Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile

(http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf). 5. _{What criteria should be used for inclusion of courses in GE?}

If the GE Academic Foundations Domains Matrix is representative of the program goals of the GE curriculum, it should be used as the basis for defining the criteria for inclusion of courses in GE. Further explication of these criteria is necessary in consultation with the GSC. Some issues that should be considered when defining these criteria include:

• Identifying courses with the right balance of vocational pursuits vs. liberal education outcomes that emphasize the “life of the mind”

• Mapping the goals of the course to specific learning outcomes within the Domains Matrix (via course content, activities, and/or assignments) and designing a corresponding

assessment strategy to gathering evidence that demonstrates how the learning outcomes have been achieved

• Identifying courses that can be staffed and offered regularly

• For continuing courses – setting a minimum enrollment

• Periodic review of all GE course offerings to ensure that all outcomes within the Domains Matrix are being addressed and multiple course options are available within each cell

(6)

6

6. _{Do students who complete GE at UWF have the skills and competencies articulated}

in the Domains Matrix?

As noted in Tables 2-4 in the Self Study, we know that based on the courses they have taken, students are exposed to the outcomes defined in the Domains Matrix. However, an assessment plan should be developed by the individual overseeing GE in consultation with the GSC to gather evidence of actual student understanding and levels of mastery of these outcomes.

7. _{How might the institution address GE resource challenges associated with}

University growth?

Given the current resource challenges faced by the institution, attention to the GE program is critical, particularly with respect to increasing enrollment both on campus and online. Tables 28 and 29 in the Self Study highlight the potential of the GE program to not only generate profit in the future and as mentioned above, its significant role in supporting the educational mission of the university. The academic preparation of current and future UWF students within GE was a major concern of everyone we met with particularly with respect to students' abilities to succeed not only in their major and but also in future careers. While economic resource challenges are a reality faced by all higher education institutions, they should not completely constrain creativity and innovation in teaching and learning in the GE program. We recommend exploring

opportunities where a phased implementation of no cost to low cost interventions might be possible while working towards a broader vision of what GE at UWF could be in the future.

8. _{What should be the role of contingent faculty (adjuncts and graduate teaching}

assistants) in GE?

While all of the department chairs recognized the benefits of tenure line faculty teaching GE courses, adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants fulfill a necessary and critical role within some departments by helping them meet their lower division course needs so that tenure line faculty are available to teach upper division courses. More can and should be done to incentivize tenure line faculty to consider teaching GE courses since they are uniquely qualified to advise first year and sophomore students who would also benefit from taking courses from excellent teachers early on in their academic career.

However, given that in some departments, contingent faculty are responsible for the majority, if not all, of the GE courses, the GE leadership and the departments themselves can take steps to help these instructors better understand the purpose of and expectations for GE courses and also communicate these goals and outcomes to their students. In addition to holding orientations for adjuncts teaching GE courses and planning outreach activities from the department, another option would be to establish a lead instructor (who may be a tenure line faculty member or perhaps a permanent instructor) to guide, advise, and mentor adjuncts and also ensure consistency in the department’s GE courses from term to term.

(7)

7

9. _{What role should online delivery of courses play in GE?}

Similar to the issue of contingent faculty, online courses are necessary in order to better serve the UWF student population particularly nontraditional students, adult learners, and students in the military. However, attention should be given to a more thoughtful and intentional strategy for online delivery of GE courses particularly with respect to:

• Preparing faculty to teach online and to deliver a quality GE course

• Defining the minimum requirements for students to be able to take an online GE course, both with respect to their competency in a particular field (e.g., minimum GPA, academic standing) and skills (e.g. self discipline, time management) so that they can successfully complete and pass the course

• Understanding who takes online GE courses (e.g., a student living on campus vs. a student who is in the military and stationed elsewhere) and how GE courses might be designed to address the needs of these various student constituencies

In summary, the General Education program is well established and largely well received by students, faculty, student support services, and administration. However, in anticipation of growing enrollment and an increasingly important role as a regional comprehensive university, actions can be taken in the areas identified above to ensure that UWF’s GE program not only adequately prepares students for later success in their chosen major but also establishes a strong foundation in key competencies and core learning outcomes that enhances a student’s intellectual learning career at the university and beyond.

(8)

8

Findings and Recommendations

1. VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND GOALS

Findings: The vision, mission, and values of the general education programs are generally well accepted by the faculty as well as the students. However, students often do not have a full understanding of the purpose of general education and how these courses relate to their major and future career. There are many advisors and faculty who have a checklist mentality and ‘get it out of the way’ perception of GE courses which is inevitably communicated to the students and should be avoided.

Recommendations: Raise awareness and understanding of the mission, values, and goals of general education with campus stakeholders including, but not limited to, students, faculty and instructors, student services, department chairs, and deans. Recognize how GE is marketed to various audiences depending on their specific needs. Explicitly communicate and reiterate the importance of general education as it relates to the educational mission of the university. 2. CURRICULUM AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

2.1 Online General Education Curriculum

Findings: Teaching courses online serves several important UWF constituencies – nontraditional students, working adult learners, students from rural communities who are geographically distant, and the military population. Theoretically, it is possible to complete all general education requirements through online courses. However there are concerns about both the quality and the rigor of the online courses that are taught as well as misconceptions of how “easy” these courses are to both give and to take by faculty and students, respectively.

Recommendations: Based on these findings, a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to the selection of online courses offered within the general education curriculum is needed. Instead of a “one size fits all” model, we recommend carefully reviewing:

1. How faculty are prepared to teach online and successfully deliver a quality GE course 2. The minimum requirements for students to be able to take an online GE course, both

with respect to their competency in a particular field (e.g., minimum GPA, academic standing) and personal preparation (e.g. self discipline, time management skills) such that they can successfully complete and pass the course

3. Who takes online GE courses (e.g., a student living on campus vs. a student who is in the military and stationed elsewhere) and how GE courses might be designed to address the needs of these various student constituencies

(9)

9

2.1.1 Training for faculty planning to teach online courses

Many tenure line and contingent faculty spoke highly of the Academic Technology Center (ATC) and programs such as Studio E. Several faculty attested to the fact that this training not only enhanced their experience teaching an online course but also had a positive impact on their in-class teaching experience as well (for further expansion on the impact of online course training on classroom teaching, see Shea, Pelz, Fredericksen, and Pickett (2001) --

https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemId=2 499).

2.1.2 Screening criteria for online courses

We were particularly impressed by the criteria set by the Math department to require a minimum B- grade or demonstrated proficiency in prior math coursework in order for students to be able to take an online course. This has resulted in higher success rates for students taking those courses as independently confirmed by the University Advising Center.

2.1.3 Needs of online students

In theory, all 36 semester hours of the general education requirements can be completed online. This flexibility is necessary in order to accommodate the needs of UWF students who are unable to come to campus as well as those who wish to complete courses over the summer. However, on campus students are also increasingly choosing to take one or two online courses to

supplement their regular course load.

All online students will require technical training in online tools as well as a clear explanation of course expectations and the personal skills needed to be successful in the online environment (e.g., time management, self discipline). It may also be useful to differentiate among these various student groups since while online courses may be a necessary option for some students, for on campus students, particularly freshmen and sophomores, physically attending class and engaging in face-to-face, real time discussions with faculty and peers are critical experiences for a liberal education. On campus students may be missing out an exceptional classroom experience should they choose to fulfill a significant number of their GE courses online.

In summary, a more comprehensive and intentional strategy for the offering of online general education courses should be considered. This strategy should include – a review of existing campus resources teaching and learning in online courses, and establishing clear expectations and requirements for students to succeed in the online environment. (For an example of how the University of Kansas is developing an overall strategy for their distance education program, see http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2011/03/30/Evaluating-Distance-Learning-at-U-Kansas.aspx).

(10)

10

2.2 Connectedness of General Education and the Majors

Findings: Based on the findings from the Student Survey in the Self Study, students desire courses that link to future careers and have difficulty seeing the relevance of their general education courses to their major classes (pages 25-26). Some of the examples of how these connections are made were shared during our student interviews. One student realized the usefulness of her GE course in statistics when analyzing issues in her upper division political science course. Another student described an English composition instructor who constantly reiterated the value and importance of being able to communicate effectively through writing for all majors, particularly for those students pursuing technical fields.

Recommendations: All general education stakeholders – students, faculty and instructors, graduate teaching assistants, student services staff, administration – should understand the purpose and goals of the GE program and how these courses serve the educational mission of the institution. Students as well as faculty need to be reminded of the importance of GE through, for example, the criteria for including courses in the curriculum and workshops for faculty in

addition to campus publications, the course bulletin, and other marketing materials.

Tailoring a message to students is also important since some students may not even know which of their classes fall under general education and why they are designated as such. It may be useful to provide language (such as the mission statement) to faculty and advisors that they can use to educate and describe to students how their GE courses represent the foundation for developing skills that are critical to successfully navigating their major courses.

2.3 Sequencing of General Education Courses

Findings: From our meetings with the Associated Programs and Services, some students are delaying completing their GE courses until their senior year or right before graduation for various reasons ranging from scheduling conflicts due to courses not being offered or being oversubscribed or personal reasons such as avoidance of a particular subject. The issue of when students complete their GE requirements is important since it affects how a faculty member frames their course, and potentially the value and purpose of the GE course in how it is perceived by, for example, a first year student vs. a graduating senior.

Recommendations: In order to meet the goals of the GE program as defined in the mission, a more thoughtful strategy is needed in order to motivate students to complete their GE

requirements in the first two years. Further investigation of the following questions is necessary:

• What percentage of students complete their general education requirements in the first two years?

• What are the reasons why they wait and how do we address them?

• Would an AA degree motivate students to take GE courses in first two years and if yes, how do we promote this option to students?

(11)

11

As noted above, an integrated communications plan emphasizing the mission, purpose, and goals of the GE curriculum should be designed and shared with all campus stakeholders.

Communicating the value of GE courses via the development of key skills and abilities should be reiterated in order to address the common perception that GE courses are something to “get out of the way,” therefore implying that they have little inherent value other than to serve as a requirement to “check off.”

3. SCHOLARSHIP AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

Findings: From our meetings with faculty, questions were raised about scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and how these activities are valued and recognized at the department, school, and institutional levels. One faculty member found GE courses to be as an excellent testbed for conducting SoTL research, although there were also concerns about how SoTL-related articles would be judged and evaluated by faculty peers. The math department has produced several peer reviewed articles that integrate their teaching of GE courses and

assessment efforts (see Appendix A). With respect to creative activities, the Honors Program is experimenting with interdisciplinary courses and experiential learning pedagogies that could also serve as a model for similar activities and practices in selected GE courses.

Recommendations: Efforts related to scholarship can be more broadly defined to encompass additional professional development activities that contribute to improved teaching of GE courses and foster innovations in teaching and learning (e.g., training in the use of interactive classroom technologies such as clickers or workshops on strategies to foster more effective teaching in large lecture courses). Participation in these kinds of educational workshops and/or seminars would be voluntary but could be incentivized through some kind of credit or

recognition given in annual evaluations and institutional teaching awards geared towards GE. As an example, Appendix B includes a draft of a proposed assessment mini-grant program

developed by the Academic Program Assessment Council. Faculty release time and other incentives for scholarship such as travel grants for conferences related to General Education and assessment could also be provided.

Another possible approach to foster creative activities while also strengthening the connection between general education and the majors is the creation of tracks or a sequence of several thematically linked courses within the GE course offerings. Possible themes might include an interdisciplinary focus to a topic or problem or more purposeful writing as it relates to a particular discipline. This would facilitate stronger alignment of general education goals with the desired outcomes/goals of the majors while also addressing students’ desire for skills and competencies that lead to post-graduation employability. The faculty we spoke to were receptive to exploring some form of interdisciplinary collaboration and team teaching. As a result, we recommend further investigation of how the roadblocks related to the institutional infrastructure

(12)

12

with respect to splitting course FTEs can be overcome in order to create a supportive

environment that is not prohibitive but encouraging of innovation and experimentation among the GE program’s greatest resource – enthusiastic faculty who truly care about providing students with a quality learning experience.

4. SERVICE

Findings and Recommendations: Based on our interviews, the faculty and instructors who teach GE courses perform a critical and essential service to the institution and the broader educational community at UWF. By framing GE as a form of service, there may be an opportunity to

address the concerns expressed by these faculty and instructors, including but not limited to, how to effectively meet the needs of students with diverse backgrounds and skill proficiencies,

teaching large lecture classes, lower course evaluations, and preparing students for upper division courses in their major. With a more clearly defined GE governance structure and streamlined assessment process, the prospects for service within GE could be expanded at the institutional, professional, and community levels and encouraged among various GE

stakeholders.

5. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

5.1 Methodology

Findings: Each GE course currently maps the course level outcomes to one of the cells within the GE Academic Foundations Domains Matrix. Each year faculty and departments can choose new domains to explore in their GE classes however, these changes can be challenging and time consuming to track. While departments are tracking exposure to specific learning domains through what is delivered to the students in the course, evidence of actual student understanding and mastery of these outcomes are not currently documented. While participation in GE

assessment activities appears to vary from department to department, there also appears to be a lack of clear understanding of the criteria by which departments’ assessment activities are evaluated and the relationship of these assessment activities to securing future faculty lines. Recommendations: GE program assessment should be framed around the improvement of

student learning in the first two years, identifying what should be paid attention to, and the use of assessment findings to inform decisions about student learning. The GE Domains matrix is a good starting point for conversation with faculty and instructors around the alignment of individual course goals with GE program level outcomes.

Establishing an approach for holding departments accountable should also be explored by the GE leadership. It may also be useful to consider other models of GE program assessment to

(13)

13

Community College draws upon existing institutional data sources and validated measures used in the community college version of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to assess key behavioral indicators for student learning such as engagement and critical thinking. While LaGuardia’s use is focused on students in courses with ePortfolios as compared to

students in non-ePortfolio courses as well as institutional and national scores for these outcomes, one could envision using similar measures to compare students across GE courses addressing a common domain in the matrix. Such an approach could result in building partnerships with CUTLA, Institutional Research and Effectiveness Support (IRES), and the Student Affairs, Assessment, Evaluation and Research organization and the surveys they administer

(http://uwf.edu/studentaffairs/assessment/currentproj.cfm). See also

http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/ePortfolio-learning-and-change and http://faculty.lagcc.cuny.edu/ctl/journal/v1n2/pdf/ClarkEtAl.pdf for more information on LaGuardia’s process.

5.2 Use of Data

Findings: The data that are being collected within GE courses are often not being effectively used to inform departmental decisions about curriculum content, teaching, and learning. In our conversations, several faculty and chairs questioned the value of the current assessment efforts. One faculty member called assessment one of the “great unfunded mandates” of the university. Recommendations: We suggest reframing the goals and purpose of assessment for departments teaching within the GE curriculum as part of the broader communications strategy of the GE program as a whole. While there is general acceptance of the GE Domains Matrix as

representing the set of learning outcomes and skills that students will have achieved after completing the GE curriculum, from our discussions with faculty, and adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants in particular, there is minimal understanding of how the cells in the matrix are defined, operationalized at the course level, and how they should be measured. The “bingo matrix” is certainly one approach to start this conversation but it may useful to identify other approaches to frame this discussion.

Effective use of data will follow improved assessment plans that are focused on designing meaningful and useful research studies tailored to the specific needs of the department. While most faculty feel confident assessing their majors in upper division courses within their

discipline, some are less certain about how to assess non-majors who are taking a broad survey course in their field in order to fulfill a GE requirement. As a result, adequate assessment of GE will require support and resources aimed specifically on issues and questions related to effective assessment in general education (e.g., see publications listed under Assessing General Education -- http://www.aacu.org/resources/generaleducation/index.cfm).

(14)

14

6. ARTICULATION WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY

Findings and Recommendations: As noted in the Self Study, articulation is mandated by the Florida State statutes and is therefore a design constraint for the GE program. However, articulation is an important issue for the GE program with respect to students who have

completed their general education requirements at other institutions and then transfer to UWF. Their level of preparation for upper division courses and proficiency in skills such as written communication are often varied and inconsistent. In order to assess with greater accuracy how prepared students are for upper division courses in their major, we propose looking into the possible use of proficiency exams for skills such as writing and other instruments for self

assessment and self monitoring. For example, the Writing Lab offers a diagnostic test that could be selectively used by instructors to evaluate their students or by the student themselves to increase their own awareness of their strengths and weaknesses and hopefully motivate them to seek out additional instruction as necessary.

7. ENROLLMENT RELATED PRODUCTIVITY

Findings and Recommendations: In the coming years, the university expects to grow in

enrollment with a targeted goal of 12,000 students by 2012. As a result, how can the institution best prepare for the inevitable increase in students of varying backgrounds, proficiencies, and interests? The areas of need are already apparent in the current student body and a more proactive and deliberate strategy is required particularly with respect to:

• An improved infrastructure, e.g., physical buildings as well as technology in order to support students taking GE courses on campus and online

• The student-faculty experience in GE courses especially in large lecture sections and online as this relates to UWF’s competitive advantage and how the institution is perceived by the public

• Recognition of where students may be lacking in preparation and the skills needed to succeed in GE courses, e.g., written communication, math proficiency, personal study skills such as time management, self discipline, etc.

8. RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM

8.1 Resources to Support Tenure Line Faculty and Contingent Faculty

Findings: The reliance on contingent faculty (adjuncts and super adjuncts) teaching the bulk of general education courses in several departments was a concern raised in the Self Study. Costs and resource constraints are the main reason why contingent faculty are employed. Without adjuncts to teach lower division courses and generate FTEs, the teaching needs of upper division courses would be difficult to meet.

(15)

15

It is widely acknowledged that the majority of adjuncts are academically qualified to teach in their field and have a lot to contribute to the students and the classroom through the richness of their industry experiences and career insights. However, although adjuncts are a valuable

resource for departments, their limited compensation makes it extremely difficult to require them to attend faculty development workshops and other departmental or campus events outside of the responsibilities specific to their courses.

Recommendations: More investigation is needed to determine what should be the right balance and proportion of contingent faculty and tenure line faculty for GE courses, depending on the department and the subject that is being taught.

Clearly, the use of adjuncts varies from department to department and is influenced by both program needs and availability of qualified adjuncts (i.e., in the some of the more technical departments, the majority of courses are taught by faculty since qualified adjuncts are difficult to find). However, if adjuncts are by and large carrying the majority of the GE teaching load, they should have a minimal understanding of the purpose of and expectations for these courses. While some adjuncts are UWF alumni and have some familiarity with the program, a formal introduction to the mission of the program is needed in order to ensure consistency across courses. This coherence is necessary both to successfully operationalize program learning outcomes at the course level and to make certain a shared understanding of the mission and goals of GE is communicated to students.

Outreach to GE adjuncts could be accomplished through a range of approaches. In some departments (e.g., English), adjuncts are mentored for two semesters but in other programs, the adjuncts are expected to design their course and find the appropriate resources on their own. Because adjuncts often work outside of UWF and have other commitments, every effort should be made to offer flexible scheduling for interested adjuncts to engage and participate in

professional development workshops and events. In addition to holding GE-specific orientations for adjuncts, another option could be to establish a lead instructor (who may be a tenure line faculty member or perhaps a permanent instructor) to guide, advise, and mentor contingent faculty within a department or program offering GE courses.

Related to the use of contingent faculty is the issue of how to incentivize tenure line faculty to teach GE courses. More can and should be done to motivate tenure line faculty to consider teaching GE courses since they are uniquely qualified to advise first years and sophomore students who would also benefit from taking courses from excellent teachers early on in their academic career (see, for example, Dr. Vincent Tinto’s research on retention --

http://faculty.soe.syr.edu/vtinto/). While each department/program has their own unique needs and considerations, the following are some possible reasons that might appeal to tenure line faculty who might be interested in teaching GE courses:

(16)

16

• Recruitment of potential majors and minors

• Generation of FTEs

• Recognition of the unique needs of students in lower division GE courses that tenure line faculty are uniquely qualified to address with respect to academic and career advising

• Using GE courses as a venue to mentor graduate students by allowing them to shadow tenure line faculty in the classroom so that they can decide whether they want to pursue teaching

• Using GE courses as testbeds for research and scholarship related to scholarship of teaching and learning

• Additional opportunities to apply for GE-related seed grants, travel grants to attend teaching-related conferences and workshops, and recognition for excellent teaching (e.g., TIP Awards)

8.2 Resources to Support General Education Assessment Activities

Findings: While faculty and department chairs understand that assessment activities are a required component of courses within the GE program, complete reporting of assessments by departments is inconsistent and the relationship between assessment data and course

improvement is unclear (Self Study, pages 4-15).

One of the greatest challenges to assessment within GE courses by faculty is finding the time to balance participation in assessment workshops with activities related to research and academic scholarship that are clearly defined and required for tenure and promotion. Departmental and institutional recognition of participation in these kinds of “teaching and learning” activities are not clearly stated or communicated.

From our interviews, it is obvious that faculty and chairs do not want the collection of

assessment data to be an empty exercise nor a requirement to simply fulfill. If they are going to collect data, they want this data to be valid, meaningful and practically useful. However, while many faculty do feel confident in evaluating the competencies and learning outcomes of their majors, they lack expertise in finding and/or designing appropriate tools or rubrics for assessing the undecided student or non-major who is taking an introductory survey course to fulfill a GE requirement.

Recommendations: Support for effective assessment in general education begins with the recognition that there are issues and questions unique to GE that may require specific expertise and resources. A critical issue is the institutional commitment to assessment and how to motivate and recognize faculty who do engage in professional development activities related to assessment. Recognition of assessment activities as institutional service and providing

(17)

17

development through travel and seed grants (e.g, Appendix B), course release time, and/or credit in tenure and promotion portfolios should be considered.

Additional resources for GE assessment could take the form of expanding the services of the Center for University Teaching, Learning, & Assessment (CUTLA) or appointing an assessment manager who could work with CUTLA and/or Institutional Research and Effectiveness Support (IRES) and Student Affairs Assessment, Evaluation & Research (SAAER). Some of the

responsibilities of this assessment manager that would be specific to the General Studies program could include:

• Streamlining the assessment reporting process at the program level, including

investigating the adoption of tools such as assessment management systems that could help automate the process and generate reports to facilitate departmental reporting

• Responding to requests from faculty and department chairs for assistance and perhaps one-on-one consulting to develop assessment plans and identify valid and reliable tools that are appropriate for their GE courses and their discipline

• Providing models for the design of assessment research projects to explore questions of interest to the department and demonstrate how the findings can inform decisions about GE courses and the students who take these courses

• Building personal relationships with the chairs and assessment liaisons of GE departments through individual consultations and other outreach activities such as showcasing best practices around campus and nationally, as examples for other departments and programs

• Developing workshops and resources such as recorded Elluminate webinars that faculty can easily access and adapt for their courses, focused on the “how to” of assessment and tailored to the specific course or discipline

8.3 Resources to Support Associated Programs and Services

Findings: We participated in lengthy discussions with the programs and services associated with the General Education program including representatives from the General Studies Committee, University Advising Center, Student Success Programs, Honors Program, and the Math and Writing Labs. These programs offer a wide range of important resources and services that are extremely valuable to the faculty as well as students.

Recommendations: All of these associated programs and services should continue to be funded and possibly expanded, in particular those services that are in high demand such as math and writing support. The University Advising Center is a critical partner in facilitating

communications with students in the GE program. The Student Success Programs and the Math and Writing Labs play an important role in identifying at risk students and in some respects, serving as a “filter” to direct students to the appropriate courses and resources. These associated programs also have a significant role in addressing the increasing importance of information

(18)

18

literacy (through resources from the university library) and the project and time management skills related to becoming acculturated to the academic culture. Most striking was the finding from the University Advising Center that three-quarters of first year students are on academic probation by the midpoint of their first year. This finding not only draws attention to the preparedness of students entering the university but in particular underscores the significant and critical need for the services provided by these associated programs.

9. OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS

9.1 Governance Structure

Findings: Currently, there is no individual or entity that has direct oversight of the General Studies program. To a large extent, the General Studies Committee (GSC) and the College of Arts and Sciences currently fulfill this role.

Recommendations: We strongly support the GEAR committee’s recommendation for a single individual to provide a unifying structure and identity for GE in partnership or consultation with the General Studies Committee (GSC). While the majority of GE courses are within the College of Arts and Sciences, all three colleges benefit from a strong GE program and there should be an emphasis on inclusivity among the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Business, and Professional Studies. We envision this person working closely with the GSC and reporting directly to the Provost perhaps as a member of the Deans’ Council

In this revised governance structure, the GSC would have a stronger role in directly informing pedagogical and curricular decisions and concretely defining the criteria to evaluate which courses should be accepted into the general education curriculum. Given that the GSC has representation from all three colleges and extensive knowledge of the general education curriculum, it is uniquely qualified to partner or consult with the individual overseeing GE. As the campus advocates for General Education, some of their responsibilities might include conducting outreach activities to faculty and instructors as well as students, department chairs, deans, support service staff, and other stakeholders. In addition, they could also develop

informational resources (e.g., a GE website, program descriptions, etc.) and hold orientations for faculty and instructors who are currently teaching or planning to teach a GE course addressing such topics as:

o Introducing the GE program goals and how the curricula fits into the broader educational mission of the university

o Describing the criteria and process by which courses are added and removed from the GE curricula

o Outlining how assessment activities support and inform continuous improvement of the program

(19)

19

o Providing an overview of campus resources for developing GE courses (online and face-to-face) and support for teaching, learning, and assessment in the GE curricula

9.2 Concerns About Writing Proficiency

Findings: Concern about the writing preparation and proficiency of UWF students, particularly in upper division courses, was repeatedly mentioned in the many of our meetings. This is viewed as a significant deficiency which needs to be addressed systematically and as soon as students enter the institution. Currently students are directed to the Writing Lab for remediation and many courses (including English Composition courses) are making the Writing Lab services a course requirement. As a result, the Writing Lab services are oversubscribed despite offering numerous face-to-face and online options on evenings and weekends. Students are often turned away particularly in the latter half of the semester when assignments are due.

Recommendations: Given that a number of the students who have been admitted to UWF need additional support to ensure that they meet the minimum standards for college level writing, we raise the question of who should be responsible for helping students develop these skills so that they can succeed in their general education courses as well as in their major. This question also extends to the level of preparation of transfer students (vs. native UWF students) who have completed their GE requirements elsewhere. How should this responsibility be distributed among the Writing Lab, English Composition courses and faculty, as well as the students themselves? We recommend a more comprehensive investigation of the context and the factors influencing this problem in order to inform future allocation of resources and identify possible solutions.

9.3 Review of GEAR Recommendations and Proposed Action Plans

The following is a brief summary of the recommendations and action plans proposed by the GEAR committee and the responses from the external review team:

1. Recommendation: A single individual be appointed to have oversight of general education at UWF.

Response: We strongly agree with this recommendation (see Section 9.1: Governance Structure)

2. Recommendation: Begin a substantive exploration of meaningful curricular reform of general education.

Response: The discovery process and discussions on campus have already begun and if our conversations are any indication, there is strong interest among all campus stakeholders in continuing and advancing this exploration.

(20)

20

3. Recommendation: Review the criteria for including courses as part of the General Studies curriculum.

Response: This will be an important responsibility for the individual overseeing the general education program in partnership with the GSC to ensure a broader representation of GE courses from all three colleges.

4. Recommendation: A clear policy that identifies expectations for the scope of assessment work and the procedures for documentation should be established.

Response: Yes, please see Sections 5: Program Assessment and 8.2: Resources to Support General Education Assessment Activities.

5. Recommendation: The current General Studies Committee should broaden both its scope and depth of involvement in General Studies.

Response: Given the proposed changes in the governance structure (see Section 9.1: Governance Structure), the GSC should have a stronger role in informing pedagogical and curricular decisions.

6. Recommendation: Meaningful faculty/staff development with regard to general education should be provided.

Response: Professional development addressing issues related to General Education should be targeted at both tenure line and contingent faculty and staff, with a specific emphasis on assessment (please see Sections 5: Program Assessment, 8.1: Resources to Support Tenure Line Faculty and Contingent Faculty and 8.2: Resources to Support General Education Assessment Activities).

7. Recommendation: The relationship between general education and major courses should be more widely discussed, more precisely articulated, and then folded into faculty development. Response: Yes, please see Section 2.2: Connectedness of General Education to the Majors. 8. Recommendation: Meaningful student development should be provided with regard to

general education.

Response: Yes, please see Sections 1: Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals and 2.2: Connectedness of General Education to the Majors.

9. Recommendation: Whenever possible, departments should make an effort to increase the involvement of tenure-track faculty in general education instruction.

Response: Yes, however a broader understanding of the context and the factors that influence decisions to engage contingent faculty are necessary, as described in Section 8.1: Resources to Support Tenure Line Faculty and Contingent Faculty.

(21)

21

10.Recommendation: The committee recommends continued support of those offices and units providing academic services to general education students.

Response: Yes, please see Sections 8.3 Resources to Support Associated Programs and Services and 9.2 Concerns About Writing Proficiency.

11.Recommendation: It is recommended that the university consider providing specific recognition and reward systems for individuals teaching General Studies courses.

Response: Yes, please see Sections 3: Scholarship and Creative Activities, 4: Service, 8.1: Resources to Support Tenure Line Faculty and Contingent Faculty, and 8.2: Resources to Support General Education Assessment Activities.

12.Recommendation: General education goals and objectives should be reviewed for currency and assurance of continued articulation with those of the university.

(22)

22

Summary Assessment: UWF Program Evaluation Matrix

1. Mission Fit: 2.8

Comments: This should be an integral part of the mission however, more assessment data are needed in order to evaluate whether and how to assist students that enter UWF so that they are able to attain adequate proficiency to meet the needs of the region. More effort should be made to increase awareness of the mission of the GE curricula and how regional needs are addressed.

2. Educational Quality: Not Applicable due to lack of sufficient data to evaluate educational quality

3. Assessment Planning: 1.3

Comments: It appears that faculty and departments are going through the process of collecting data but the quality of the data and the usefulness of the findings cannot currently be determined.

4. Operational Quality: 2.1

Comments: Increasing enrollment in GE courses will contribute to resource generation and an assessment process has been implemented. However, approaches to program challenges should be more proactive with an eye towards long term strategic planning. 5. Strategic Planning: 1.3

Comments: We agree with the comments made by the GEAR committee regarding the need to institute processes aimed towards reaching a more comprehensive vision of the GE experience at UWF could be.

6. Faculty Quality: Not Applicable

7. Cost Recovery: 4.0

Comments: General Studies is generating income however these funds need to be reinvested in the program in a more equitable way.

8. Enrollment History: 3.0

Comments: Enrollment will continue to grow but the needs of incoming students are a concern and management of enrollment is critical in order to ensure that resources are in place to support the students who are admitted.

(23)

23

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Li, K., Uvah, J., Amin, R., & Hemasinha, R. (2009). A study of non-traditional instruction on qualitative reasoning and problem solving in general studies mathematics courses. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 37-49.

Li, K., Uvah, J., Amin, R., & Okafor, A. (2010). A study of college readiness for college algebra. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 52-66.

ENLACE Florida. (2009, October). Opening the gates to success in Florida higher education. Volume 3(5), 1-10.

APPENDIX B

Academic Program Assessment Council Assessment Mini-Grant Program Draft Academic Programs Assessment Council Assessment Grants Rubric

(24)

APPENDIX A

Li, K., Uvah, J., Amin, R., & Hemasinha, R. (2009). A study of non-traditional instruction on qualitative reasoning and problem solving in general studies mathematics courses. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 37-49.

Li, K., Uvah, J., Amin, R., & Okafor, A. (2010). A study of college readiness for college algebra. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 52-66.

ENLACE Florida. (2009, October). Opening the gates to success in Florida higher education. Volume 3(5), 1-10.

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

APPENDIX B

Academic Program Assessment Council Assessment Mini-Grant Program Draft

(61)

DRAFT

DRAFT 1

Request for Proposals APAC Assessment Mini-Grants

Purpose

The Academic Program Assessment Council Assessment Mini-Grant Program is intended to promote high-quality assessment of student learning outcomes at the program level at the University of West Florida. The goals of this program are to provide funding to assist faculty and staff with the development and implementation of meaningful program-level assessment practices, encourage professional development associated with the use of assessment evidence to improve student learning, and to assist faculty in transforming effective assessment practices to scholarship of teaching and learning.

Types of Grants Awards

General Education Assessment Mini-Grant Maximum award: $4,000

Eligibility:

• Collaborative efforts that involve two or more departments or disciplines and focus on the assessment of a shared student learning outcomes associated with the General Education (Academic Foundations) program.

• Funded activities involve faculty from two or more academic departments and entail the assessment of student work sampled from courses offered by these departments.

General Education Assessment Mini-Grants provide start-up funds for a new initiative directly related to the planned assessment of student learning outcomes at the university level (e.g., writing across the curriculum; contributions of departments to General Education student learning outcomes such as information literacy, quantitative literacy, technological literacy, inquiry skills, critical thinking; community engagement learning outcomes). These awards are large scale assessment projects that engage multiple faculty members from several

departments/disciplines. Evidence of sustainability beyond the period of funding will receive higher priority in allocation of funds.

Departmental Assessment Mini-Grant Maximum award: $1,500

Eligibility:

• Collaborative efforts within a department that focus on discipline-specific curricular or instructional issues

• Funded activities involve two or more faculty from a single discipline and entail the assessment of program-level learning outcomes for students majoring in the discipline. Disciplinary Assessment Mini-Grants provide start-up funds for a new initiative directly related to the planned assessment of student learning outcomes at the program level. These awards are large scale assessment projects that engage multiple faculty members in the department. Evidence of sustainability of the activity beyond the period of funding will receive higher

(62)

DRAFT

DRAFT 2

priority in allocation of funds. A department may receive funding for a Departmental

Assessment Mini-Grant only once for a specific assessment project during a seven-year period. Faculty SoTL Project

Maximum award: $500 ($1000) Eligibility:

• Full-time faculty (instructors, visiting faculty, tenured and non-tenured faculty)

• Funded activities involve the use of assessment evidence to evaluate the impact of a change in teaching strategy or new activity on student learning related to program-level student learning outcomes in a required course in the degree program (that is, the course must be identified as contributing to this program-level learning outcome in the

departmental curriculum map).

Faculty SoTL Projects examine program-level student learning outcomes as they relate to the assessment of student learning outcomes in the context of a specific course. These projects must be directly related to the department’s assessment plan and student learning outcomes. A

Faculty SoTL Project might introduce a new embedded assessment to address a program-level learning outcome. Alternatively the project might include curriculum redesign or development of new pedagogy motivated by existing assessment evidence and an assessment of the impact of these modifications on student learning. Faculty SoTL Projects are smaller in scope and will be awarded as resources permit. Funding will be provided only once for a specific Faculty Project over a 3-year period.

Deadlines

General Education Assessment Mini-Grants & Departmental Assessment Mini-Grants Proposals due: June 15, 2011

Notification of outcomes: July 1, 2011 Implementation: Fall Term 2011

Time period for grants awarded: August 1, 2011 – May 2013

Post-funding deadlines:

Final Reports: June 1, 2013

Contribution to campus faculty development activity: No later than May 1, 2013

Faculty SoTL Project

Proposals due: September 1, 2011 Notification of outcomes: October 3, 2011 Implementation: Spring Term 2012

Time period for grants awarded: January 1, 2012 – May 2013

Post-funding deadlines:

Final Reports: June 1, 2013

(63)

DRAFT

DRAFT 3

Application Guidelines

Proposals should follow the format described in the template provided. [General Education / Departmental Assessment Mini-Grant Template] [Faculty SoTL Project Template]

Proposals should be sent to xxxxxx. Proposal Document

Elements of narrative Budget

Support document

Institutional IRB application, approval letter, or decision identifying the assessment activities as exempt research

Required Reports and Activities

1. All recipients of a mini-grant award will be required to submit a final report in which the PI(s)

a. document the activities completed under mini-grant funding,

b. describe the assessment methods developed and used during the funding period, c. describe the interpretation of assessment evidence gathered with these methods, d. describe the decisions made and actions implemented or planned based on

interpretation of assessment evidence, and

e. describe how the impact of these decisions or actions will be evaluated and reported in future annual assessment reports.

2. All mini-grant awardees (PI(s)) will be required to contribute to faculty development of assessment skill in the UWF community by providing a workshop, presentation, or panel discussion at an assessment mini-conference or develop content for a resource page posted to the CUTLA (or APAC?) assessment web site. Awardees must disseminate the project results to the university community in a form that will be useful to other faculty and programs on campus.

3. Failure to meet all required reporting activities will disqualify recipients for consideration for future APAC awards.

Selection Criteria

• Clear articulation of the alignment of the propose project with departmental, college, or university assessment plans or needs

• Evidence of clear intent to use the results for implementing improvements to curriculum and teaching: Proposal describes a clear connection between project activities, student learning outcomes, and program improvement; Good fit between project objectives and proposed methods; Proposed activities are adequate to meet the goals stated for the project

• The learning outcomes to be assessed are articulated in clear, unambiguous, measurable language

(64)

DRAFT

DRAFT 4

• Feasibility of project activities in proposed timeline

• Adequacy of activities to meet stated goals of the project

• Budget is appropriate, logical, and reasonable

• Likelihood that assessment activity will be sustainable beyond the period of grant funding (i.e., will become an ongoing part of program assessment without additional funding from non-departmental sources)

• Evidence of clear intent to use the results for program improvements to curriculum and teaching

• Substantive projects that build on ongoing assessment work or that are innovative and offer the potential to make a significant contribution to improved student learning will receive the highest priority for funding

• Clearly articulated plan to share what is learned from the activity though a workshop, panel discussion, presentation, or online resource hosted on the CUTLA assessment resources web site.

• Dissemination of the project results to the university community in a form that will be useful to other faculty and programs on campus.

• Documentation that the proposed assessment has been submitted for IRB review to determine status as an exempt project (or project undergoes an appropriate IRB review for the activities proposed).

Evaluation and Selection Information

Who will review grant proposals. Reference to rubric used (link to document). Date for notification of review decisions.

A review committee of the Academic Programs Assessment Council will review proposals and make recommendations to the Provost and Vice Provost (Chula and George), who will make final awards. Mini-grant proposals will be evaluated with a rubric and selected on the basis of xxxx.

Priorities that will guide funding decisions. Proposals with specific, feasible strategies for continuing or sustaining the proposed assessment activity after the period funded by the mini-grant will be given preference.

Allowable expenses under an award

• Costs of printing/copying and mailing assessments or assessment related materials

• Purchase of tests, testing software, or testing materials

• Testing fees

• Incentives for students or other participants to complete assessments or participate in assessment activities (focus groups, evaluation of capstone materials or other student products, etc.)

• Travel for administration of an assessment (not travel to a conference)

(65)

DRAFT

DRAFT 5

• Graduate stipend, wages for undergraduate student workers (costs for data input or other clerical support related to the assessment work)

Expenses that cannot be funded

• Honoraria for on-campus visits by colleagues

• Equipment (computers, PDAs, scanners, etc.)

• Payment for faculty course release

• Food/catering [would Provost agree to set aside concessions funds for this purpose for some awards?]

• Purchase of professional memberships

• Travel to conferences to learn how to do assessment

(66)

RUBRIC

Academic Programs Assessment Council Assessment Grants

Selection Criteria Weight Score

Narrative

Clear articulation of the alignment of the propose project with departmental, college, or university assessment plans or needs

Evidence of clear intent to use the results for implementing improvements to curriculum and teaching: Proposal describes a clear connection between project activities, student learning outcomes, and program improvement; Good fit between project objectives and proposed methods; Proposed activities are adequate to meet the goals stated for the project

Identification of learning outcomes to be assessed

The learning outcomes to be assessed are articulated in clear, unambiguous, measurable language

The course SLOs identified align with program-level learning outcomes and the course is a required course for the program.

Description of the assessment methods, including at least one direct measure of each learning outcome identified

Assessment methods include direct measures to assess student learning outcomes

Substantive project that builds on ongoing assessment work or that is innovative and offers the potential to make a significant contribution to improved student learning (high priority for funding)

Plan for the use of assessment evidence to guide decision-making and implementation of actions to improve quality of academic program and associated student learning

Adequacy of activities to meet stated goals of the project (Budget is appropriate, logical, and reasonable)

Evidence of clear intent to use the results for program improvements to curriculum and teaching

Plan to share expertise in assessment developed through this grant with the campus community

Clearly articulated plan to share what is learned from the activity though a workshop, panel discussion, presentation, or online resource hosted on the CUTLA assessment resources web site.

Dissemination of the project results to the university community will occur in a form that will be useful to other faculty and programs on campus.

Timeline for the proposed assessment activities

Feasibility of project activities in proposed timeline

Budget and budget narrative

Budget is appropriate, logical, and reasonable

Likelihood that assessment activity will be sustainable beyond the period of grant funding (i.e., will become an ongoing part of program assessment without additional funding from non-departmental sources)

Documentation of review and approval by the Institutional Review Board

The proposed assessment has been submitted for IRB review to determine status as an exempt project (or project will undergo an appropriate IRB review for the activities proposed).

General Education Program Review External Review Report