Millersville University, Faculty Senate
Attachment C
Faculty Senate Minutes
February 5, 2002
General Education Assessment at Millersville: A Status
Report
February 4, 2002
Though the roles of the General Education Review Committee (GERC) and the
Coordinator of General Education are broader than simply conducting outcomes
assessment for the Gen Ed program, these tasks are the major focus of our
efforts at this point in time. Toward that end, GERC concluded a process of
revising all the objectives for Gen Ed with Senate approval in May 1999. The
revision of objectives was undertaken in order to increase both the currency
and assessability of the objectives. Over the last two years, we have actively
been designing and pilot-testing assessment strategies for several of the
objectives.
As our experience has grown and the time for implementation of full-fledged
assessment has drawn closer, we have faced two related issues on which we now
seek the advice and counsel of Faculty Senate. They involve how to procure the
involvement and participation of (1) the faculty and (2) the students.
Clearly, an assessment process aimed at such a broad and integral part of the
Millersville undergraduate experience deserves and demands widespread
assistance from both parties (recall that Gen Ed does entail a minimum of 54
credits out of the 120 minimum credits for the Bachelor's Degree).
First, let me mention the issue of faculty participation. I see faculty
participation in Gen Ed assessment needed on three levels. The first level is
campus leadership, provided in large measure through service on the now
combined GERC-AOAC committee and the various sub-committees and working groups
that they have called together over the years. Many in Faculty Senate and
throughout the University have responded at this level, but some of the
difficulties of recruitment to this and other committees have been a topic of
recent Senate discussions.
A second level of participation involves allowing access to appropriate
classes and assignments for the purpose of conducting course-embedded
assessments. It has been a conscious strategy of Gen Ed assessment to employ
course-embedded assessment techniques whenever and wherever possible. These
techniques allow minimal disruption of the routine of classroom learning and
teaching, do not necessitate separate "assessment days" (getting students to
come to a testing situation, or taking class time, just to meet the needs of
outcomes assessment), and have an inherent "face" validity since they are part
of normal classroom assessment procedures.
The third level of participation lies in the scoring of course-embedded and
other assessment procedures. We have already used and anticipate much
additional use of faculty to grade tests/assignments/papers for purposes of
outcomes assessment. This is akin to employing scoring panels for AP or other
similar tests. Faculty are paid a stipend (from the assessment budget) to
score previously collected materials, usually during the summer or over break
periods.
Encouraging participation is not just an issue for faculty but for students as
well. When assessment is not course-embedded, the need for securing the
involvement of a representative group of students arises. This is the case
currently with the planned testing of students' critical reasoning abilities
using the ETS Tasks in Critical Thinking. A variety of incentive strategies
have been tried at various institutions to get students to both show up and
take seriously testing outside of the classroom. We have proposed the use of
an early registration incentive whereby students (e.g., a random sample of
students having completed about 60 credits) are invited to participate and
those who show up and complete the test are allowed to register for their next
semester's classes prior to the normal early registration period. Faculty
input on this and other incentive procedures is hereby being sought.
Our overall goal is to foster a "culture of assessment" where the processes of
collecting assessment data, reporting the results, and using them to enhance
the curriculum, our programs, and our methods of teaching and learning becomes
second nature to our system of undergraduate (and graduate) education. Until
such a culture exists, we need to find ways to encourage faculty and student
participation in the assessment activities I have outlined. It is through this
participation and the subsequent effective use of the assessment results that
a culture will be built. Your assistance with suggestions and with recruitment
is vital to the success of our collective efforts.
Return to Faculty Senate Home
Page
Return to MU Home Page