Crowd-Sourcing Innovative Practices: Assessing Integrative Learning at Large Research Institutions Mo Noonan Bischof Assistant Vice Provost [email protected] Amy Goodburn Associate Vice Chancellor [email protected] Nancy Mitchell Director, Undergraduate Education [email protected] LEAP Integrative Learning Synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies demonstrated through the application of knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to new settings and complex problems. Challenge: Assessing Integrative Learning • Can/Should the same assessment tools be used for assessing within a course, a unit, and/or institution? • Does it apply to integrating knowledge and skills within a discipline, among disciplines, or both? • How can we align quality improvement levels while respecting disciplinary purposes & values? UW-Madison Learning Community 21,615 employees… 2,177 faculty 1,635 instructional academic staff 1,261 research academic staff 5,291 graduate assistants 42,820 students … 29,118 undergraduates 9,183 graduate students 2,774 professional students 1,745 Non-degree students Annually: 7,400 new undergraduates 29,500 enrolled undergraduates 6,500 Bachelor’s degree graduates 13 academic schools/colleges distributed responsibility and governance ~500 academic programs, all levels 134 Bachelor’s level degree programs Annual Degrees More than 300 200-299 100-199 50-99 1-49 Includes WIX and ELO’s Institutional-level learning goals, assessments Program-level learning goals, assessments Program-level learning goals, assessments Program-level learning goals, assessments Program-level learning goals, assessments Program-level learning goals, assessments Why pilot the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics? • Identified gap: institutional level assessment, direct measure approach • Evaluates student learning across programs • Aligns with AAC&U Essential Learning Outcomes • Aligns with VSA/College Portrait demonstration project • First pilot project summer 2012, second pilot 2013 • Main Goal: bring faculty across disciplines together to evaluate student work AAC&U VALUE Rubric Project Scorers Rubrics • AAC&U VALUE written communication rubric • Cohort of 25 faculty • Cross-disciplinary representation • Focus on faculty engagement Artifacts • “Value-added” approach to compare first year students and students near graduation Written Communication VALUE Rubric Selected written communication for ease of identifying artifacts across disciplines/programs Dimensions: • Context and Purpose for Writing • Content Development • Genre and Disciplinary Convention • Sources and Evidence • Control of Syntax and Mechanics Artifacts: “Value-added” Approach • Goal was to collect 350 artifacts at each level, FYR and NGR • Identified 52 courses that had high numbers of FYR and NGR and seemed likely to have a suitable writing assignment • 22 courses (41 instructors) had a suitable assignment and agreed • Invited 2450 students to submit artifacts • Collected 451 submissions Scorers: Faculty Engagement • 1.5 day workshop in June 2013 Scorers • Set ground rules • 3 structured rounds intended to get faculty familiar with the rubric and to “test” scorer agreement • Asked faculty to think beyond their field/discipline • Each scorer rated about 40 artifacts • Discussion revealed challenge with the 4-point scale and what is “mastery” Rubrics Artifacts Table 1. Overall Results for All Artifact Scores Rubric Dimension Context Content Genre Sources Syntax Student Group Nearly Graduating First Year Nearly Graduating First Year Nearly Graduating First Year Nearly Graduating First Year Nearly Graduating First Year # of Artifacts 213 Mean Std Dev Zmw Score 2.95 0.95 3.05* 237 213 2.77 2.79 0.96 4.68* 237 211 2.48 2.69 0.88 2.65* 235 190 2.50 2.61 0.99 1.54 225 213 2.50 2.82 0.84 2.16* 237 2.69 *Zmw score is from the Mann Whitney U-Test. Zmw scores >1.96 indicate that the two groups are significantly different at p=0.05. Table 1. Distribution of Combined Scores - Written Communication Rubric 60.0 51.0 Percent of Scores 50.0 44.4 40.0 30.3 27.3 30.0 22.6 17.5 20.0 10.0 3.8 2.6 0.0 1 2 First-Year Students 3 Nearly Graduating Students 4 Summary Findings • Percent of nearly graduating students who were judged proficient or better (a score of 3 or 4 on 4 point scale) on each of the dimensions was fairly high—ranged from 64%83%. Across all dimensions: 74.7% • Levels of significant difference between first-year and nearly graduating students were weak • Inter-scorer reliability was problematic (“mastery” issue…) – Overall 67% of scorer pairs showed weak agreement or – Systematic disagreement What did we learn? • Importance of assignment (artifact) development • Adapt rubric: program mix and/or campus culture (language, LOs) • Engagement of faculty = high quality discussions (ground rules/calibration) • Next Steps: continue to engage faculty at program and disciplinary levels Contact Information Mo Noonan Bischof, Assistant Vice Provost, University of Wisconsin-Madison, [email protected] More about our project: http://apir.wisc.edu/valuerubricproject.htm University of Nebraska-Lincoln Research One, Big Ten Conference, Land-Grant 24,000 students 8 independent colleges Achievement-Centered Education (ACE) • • • • 10 Student Learning Outcomes (30 credits) 600 courses across 67 departments Transferable across 8 colleges Requires assessment of collected student work • • • • UNL Assessment Context Review of each ACE course on 5-year cycle Biennial review of all undergrad degree programs 50 disciplinary program accreditations 10-year North Central/HLC accreditation ACE 10 Generate a creative or scholarly product that requires broad knowledge, appropriate technical proficiency, information collection, synthesis, interpretation, presentation, and reflection. HLC Quality Initiative: ACE 10 Project • • • • • 25 faculty across colleges meet monthly to Explore methods and tools for assessing work Develop a community to share ideas Connect ACE 10 & degree program assessment Develop process for creating assessment report Create team of assessment “ambassadors” Discussing Assessment Practices A Common Rubric disciplinary vs. institutional goals Inquiry Project Results • Abandoned idea to pilot a common rubric • Revised syllabus to focus on processes, not tools • Developed poster session for public sharing • Streamlined ACE & program review processes • Creating process for 5-year ACE program review Group Discussion • How do you address differences across disciplinary norms and cultures? • What strategies can you use to develop shared goals and understanding? • How can program/ disciplinary assessments inform institutional assessment and vice versa? • What are some effective practices for supporting and sustaining faculty and staff engagement?