Quality in Undergraduate Education QUE Susan Albertine The College of New Jersey Gloria John Baltimore Ron Henry Georgia State University 02/21/03 1 Roles • Communication specialist – Gloria John • Project adviser – Susan Albertine • Standards process experts – Education Trust – Ruth Mitchell • Funders – Pew Charitable Trusts – Michelle Seidl – ExxonMobil Foundation – Ed Ahnert • Project evaluators - PSA 02/21/03 2 Roles • Critical friends – disciplinary consultants – – – – – – – – – – Spencer Benson – biology – U.Maryland Jay Labov – biology – NRC Gordon Uno – biology – U. Oklahoma - AIBS Lendol Calder – history – Augustana College Mills Kelly – history – George Mason Jim Roth – history - Alverno Paul Bodmer – English – NCTE Susan Ganter – mathematics - Clemson Bernie Madison – mathematics – MAA Jerry Sarquis – chemistry – Miami Univ. Ohio - ACS 02/21/03 3 QUE Milestones • Stage 1: Learning outcomes: What should students know, understand, and be able to do? – Learning outcomes for level 14 – Learning outcomes for level 16 – Disciplinary contributions to General Education learning outcomes 02/21/03 4 QUE Milestones • Stage 2: Assessment: What is acceptable evidence that students have attained desirable understandings and proficiencies? – Aligning assignment with learning outcome – Developing scoring guides or rubrics – Constructing performance standards for a learning outcome – Scoring student work 02/21/03 5 QUE Milestones • Stage 3: Practical ideas for learning experiences and instruction – Coping with large numbers of students – Value of rubrics – Using electronic portfolios 02/21/03 6 QUE Milestones • Stage 4: Moving to program level – Learning outcomes for sequences of courses – Gap analysis or Super-matrix – Impact of QUE work on department’s curriculum 02/21/03 7 QUE Milestones • Stage 5: Dissemination of best practices – Present at disciplinary association meetings • Disciplinary associations adopt learning outcomes – Present at national meetings such as AAHE and AAC&U – Publish monograph of case studies – Provide clearinghouse for rubrics, database for examples of exemplar work at various levels 02/21/03 8 Framework for Cognitive Outcomes Inheritance x Abstract, ProcessOriented Accumulated Experience Verbal Reasoning; Quantitative Reasoning; Spatial Reasoning Reasoning; Comprehending; Problem Solving; Decision Making In and across broad Disciplines Concrete, Content02/21/03 Oriented Knowledge Direct Declarative Procedural Schematic Strategic Experience Acquired in a Discipline 9 Why we are here - Objectives • Assessment – the heart of the matter – Standards in practice – Scoring guide development • To develop teaching strategies for assisting students in achieving standards • Better overlap of the delivered curriculum and the experienced curriculum 02/21/03 10 Agenda Cluster Groups: Friday after dinner Plenary Panel: Saturday 8:30-10:15 am Disciplinary Group meetings: Saturday 10:30-noon What did you like best about the panel? What was relevant to your discipline? Disciplinary Group meetings: Saturday1:00-3:00 pm; Sunday 9:00-10:30 am Cross-disciplinary meeting: Saturday 3:15-4:30 pm Focus Groups and Cluster Coordinators: Saturday 4:30-5:30 pm Wrap up: Sunday 10:30-11:30 am 02/21/03 11 Agenda Panel Plenary: Saturday 8:30-10:15 am Learning Across the Disciplines Susan Albertine (moderator) Lendol Calder Susan Ganter James Roth Gordon Uno 02/21/03 12 Framing Questions What does my discipline need from your discipline? What strategies does your discipline use for crossdisciplinary competencies? •Empathy; Conceptual understanding; •Sensitivity to multiple perspectives; •Problem solving; Sourcing; Data analysis; •Recognizing limits of knowledge 02/22/03 13 QUE Objectives • Development and use of standards for lower division to facilitate the transition to upper division within 4-year institutions and for transfer from 2-year to 4-year institutions • Development and use of standards for graduation from college • Levels 14 and 16 represent performance-bound learning [not the time it takes to get there] • Learner-centered learning, not time-specific or place-specific learning 02/21/03 14 QUE Deliverables • Department and campus draft learning outcomes, performance descriptions, collections of student work, and assessments of student learning 02/21/03 15 Aligned course ---- ------ ---- 02/21/03 16 Aligned Curriculum Courses B Program E I F A C G D 02/21/03 J H 17 Value of involvement in QUE • • • • • • • Conversations of faculty across institutions => more trust engendered between partners => learning from experiences of other institutions Value of Learning Community => for both faculty and students More emphasis on student reflection => e-portfolio is a vehicle 02/21/03 18 Best Practices • Make expectations for students explicit • Give students opportunity to practice skills by engaging content being presented • Faculty collaboration leading to reinforcement of student development through learning outcomes across courses rather than just in bookend courses 02/21/03 19 Best Practices • Make expectations for faculty explicit • Give faculty opportunity to practice skills by engaging content being presented • Faculty collaboration leading to reinforcement of faculty development of learning outcomes across courses rather than just in bookend courses 02/21/03 20 Some final points about developing assessment • Keeping looping back to actual student work • It’s less about establishing “Measures” than about building “Communities of Judgement” • It doesn’t stand still • Two most important adjectives are – draft and voluntary 02/21/03 21 Next meetings Meeting in September 19-21, 2003 in New Orleans Focus on design and student work Potential speaker – Grant Wiggins National meeting in spring 2004 02/21/03 22 Quality in Undergraduate Education QUE Susan Albertine The College of New Jersey Gloria John Baltimore Ron Henry Georgia State University 02/21/03 23