Transcript Quality in Undergraduate Education (QUE) Http://www.gsu.edu/que Ronald J. Henry Byron Brown Jackie Thornberry Georgia State University Valdosta State University Georgia Perimeter College Dee Abrahamse California State University Long Beach 06/14/04

Quality in Undergraduate
Education (QUE)
Http://www.gsu.edu/que
Ronald J. Henry
Byron Brown
Jackie Thornberry
Georgia State University
Valdosta State University
Georgia Perimeter College
Dee Abrahamse California State University Long Beach
06/14/04
1
QUE Framing Questions
What happens if we offer resources and
support for reform of the curriculum to arts
and sciences faculty at public universities
and two-year colleges—and ask them to
work together?
What if we ask them to describe what students
ought to know and be able to do in their
disciplines and then use that information to
set standards for practice?
Support provided by Pew Charitable Trusts
and ExxonMobil Foundation
06/14/04
2
About QUE
– Faculty-driven
– Two-year/four-year partnerships -
clusters
– Draft, voluntary student learning
outcomes and standards in a discipline
– Standards at level 14 [associate degree]
for major and non-major
– Standards at level 16 [baccalaureate] for
major
06/14/04
3
How does QUE define
standards?
[NPEC]
‘Learning outcome’ - the knowledge (facts,
concepts, principles) and skills (processes,
strategies, methods) to be learned
‘Standard’ - a predetermined criterion of a level
of student performance
‘Assessment’ - the process of collecting
data/evidence about student learning outcomes
06/14/04
4
Challenge of changing
systems

INSTRUCTIONAL
PARADIGM
 Time held constant,
learning varies
 Covering material

Degree equals
accumulated credit hours
06/14/04

LEARNING
PARADIGM
 Learning held
constant, time varies
 Specified learning
results
 Degree equals
demonstrated
knowledge and skills
5
Instructional
paradigm

Series of individual
courses
 Coverage of material
Learning
paradigm





06/14/04
Develop learning
outcomes
Set standards
Integrate experiences
Define how to assess
Develop pedagogy and
develop supports
6
Grades and seat-time vs.
learning outcomes
 Limitations of grading and sorting system
 Assessment as a program organizing
principle
– Need to approach assessment as register of student
progress through the program, not just in a particular
course

Curricular or program mapping
06/14/04
7
Conceptual Framework of
QUE

Stage 1: Development of each learning outcome
associated with a major: 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 or cross cutting
literacies.
06/14/04
8
Level
16
QUE
Level
14
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
------------------------------Foundation
to major
------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------
-------------------------------------
B
I
O
L
O
G
Y
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Math
Sciences
Introductory
core
History
English
Essential
Learning
06/14/04
Level
12
Social
Sciences
English
Math
Sciences
9
C
R
O
S
S
C
U
T
T
I
N
G
C
O
M
P
E
T
E
N
C
I
E
S
06/14/04
------------Writing---------------Critical
Thinking
-------------
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
B
I
O
L
O
G
Y
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Social
Sciences
English
Math
Sciences
Essential
Learning
10
Conceptual Framework of
QUE

Stage 2: Development of evidence that a student
has attained desirable proficiencies in a course:
Aligning assignment with learning outcome
 Developing scoring guides or rubrics
 Constructing performance standards for a
learning outcome
 Scoring student work
06/14/04
11
Conceptual Framework of
QUE

Stage 3: Development of evidence that a student has
attained desirable proficiencies in a program:
– Analyzing program to determine learning outcomes
for sequences of courses, using gap analysis or
Super-matrix.
– Using the super-matrix, trace assessment of learning
outcome through the program
– Developing aligned assessments so that a student
can demonstrate growth through courses towards
proficiency in the total program
– How do we capture student developmental progress
as s/he proceeds randomly through a series of
courses that make up a program?
06/14/04
12
Super-matrix or gap analysis
 For
the matrix of courses within program,
comparing program outcomes:
Does the course add significantly to the
learning of the program outcome?
Does the course add significantly to the
assessment of the program outcome?
06/14/04
13
Super-matrix or gap analysis
Course 1
Course 2
Course 3
Course 4
Course 5
Total
Outcome 1
1
4
4
0
4
13
Outcome 2
2
1
2
0
2
7
Outcome 3
1
2
0
2
0
5
06/14/04
14
Quality in Undergraduate
(Humanities) Education
Designing Standards in the Humanities
Using Standards to . . .
Reconfigure Curriculum
Transform Classrooms
Empower Students
06/14/04
15
Phase 1: Defining Standards
for Change
Stăn ́dərd (a):
“A flag, banner, or ensign . . . bearing
heraldic devices distinctive of a person or
corporation.”
Stăn ́dərd (b):
“An acknowledged measure of
comparison for quantitative or qualitative
value; a criterion.”
06/14/04
16
Phase 2: Using Standards to
Reconfigure Our Curriculum

Writing on the Palimpsest of History
 Setting Expectations for Student Progress
Gateway Courses
•ENGL 2060 (Introduction to English
Studies)
•ENGL 3060 (Literary Research and Writing)
Capstone Course
06/14/04
17
•ENGL 4900 (Senior Seminar)
Phase 3: Implementing
Standards-Based Instruction
•Challenging, Purposeful Assignments
•Explicit, Transparent Performance Standards
•Clear, (Student-Designed?) Scoring Rubrics
06/14/04
18
Phase 4: Internalizing Standards
within Students
•
Student-developed Portfolios (to demonstrate
proficiency in each standard)
•
Reflective Introductions to Portfolio Selections (to
give students ownership of the assessment process)
• A Senior Thesis (to address weaknesses, reinforce
essential skills, and produce a writing sample for
graduate school admission)
06/14/04
19
Two-year/Four-year interaction
and student transfer

Difference in culture
 Importance of administrator involvement
 Sustained attention to relationships
 Common faculty concern for success of transfer
students
06/14/04
20
Discussion Topics mathematics

Course alignment for transferability

Tests, projects, handouts, portfolios

Textbook selection

End of course assessment
06/14/04
21
Outcomes

Mathematical Modeling

College Algebra/Precalculus

Calculus Sequence
06/14/04
22
Embedding Assessments in
History

Performance standards in history: focus on
historical thinking and skills at survey,
transfer and major levels
 Shared standards, rubrics, student work,
assessments in rich conversations about
historical thinking and learning
 “Transparency” as a theme
06/14/04
23
Level 14 standards in
American and World History
(Salisbury)
Broad standards, types of assignments tied to
each standard (example: interpreting
primary and secondary documents)
06/14/04
24
Gateway Courses: Historical
Methodology (CSULB)

Assessable competencies published to all
students
 Assignments agreed on among sections
 Enforced as prerequisite to further courses
in major
 Work forms basis of portfolio
06/14/04
25
Portfolio Assignments (Begun
in Gateway) - CSULB

Self-reflective essays: gateway and
capstone
 Examples of work: (2-4 pieces each
category)
– Historiography, theory papers
– Analytical work (primary source analysis,
websites, etc)
06/14/04
26
Portfolio (continued)
– Mechanical skills (research proposal, computer
literacy)
– Presentation: oral presentation tape, Power Point,
teaching unit
Portfolio advisor meets with students
throughout major
Capstone seminar: Research paper and
presentation, portfolio review and assessment
06/14/04
27
Work in Progress

Theory and Historiography course (gateway
pt 2)
 Aligning assignments in other courses
(portfolio demonstrates shortages in rest of
curriculum)
06/14/04
28
Lessons Learned

Focus on sharing ideas about learning in the
discipline, with others in the field
 Quality of learning improves – brings other
faculty in
 It’s intensive, and committed faculty need
support to do it
 Institution needs to be clear about its value
in reward system
06/14/04
29
Connecting Public Audiences
to our work

Expectations made explicit
 Better coherence of degree
 Student/parent better understanding of
progress through course and towards degree
 A baccalaureate degree represents both a
broad liberal education and specialized
learning
06/14/04
30
Accomplishments of QUE
Intentionality of curriculum
Importance of systematic alignment among
learning outcomes, assignments, assessments,
and program
Value of expanded community of judgment
Set standards that provide common referent
point for evaluating student work beyond
limits of grades
06/14/04
31
Quality in Undergraduate
Education QUE
Http://www.gsu.edu/que
Ronald J. Henry
Byron Brown
Jackie Thornberry
Georgia State University
Valdosta State University
Georgia Perimeter College
Dee Abrahamse California State University Long Beach
06/14/04
32