Quality in Undergraduate Education QUE Susan Albertine The College of New Jersey Gloria John Baltimore Ruth Mitchell Education Trust Ron Henry 09/19/03 Georgia State University.

Report
Quality in Undergraduate Education
QUE
Susan Albertine
The College of New Jersey
Gloria John
Baltimore
Ruth Mitchell
Education Trust
Ron Henry
09/19/03
Georgia State University
1
Roles
• Communication specialist – Gloria John
• Project director – Susan Albertine
• Standards process experts – Education Trust
– Ruth Mitchell
– Patte Barth
• Funders
– Pew Charitable Trusts – Michelle Seidl
– ExxonMobil Foundation – Ed Ahnert
• Project evaluators - PSA
09/19/03
2
Roles
• Critical friends – disciplinary consultants
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ginny Anderson – biology – AIBS
Spencer Benson – biology – U.Maryland
Jay Labov – biology – NRC
Lendol Calder – history – Augustana College
Mills Kelly – history – George Mason
Paul Bodmer – English – NCTE
Susan Ganter – mathematics - Clemson
Bernie Madison – mathematics – MAA
09/19/03
3
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.
09/19/03
4
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
09/19/03
5
Conceptual Framework of QUE
• Stage 3: Development of evidence that a student
has attained desirable proficiencies in a
curriculum:
• Developing aligned assessments so that a
student can demonstrate growth through courses
towards proficiency in the total curriculum.
09/19/03
6
Conceptual Framework of QUE
• Stage 3a: Curriculum Mapping
• Analyzing curriculum to determine learning
outcomes for sequences of courses, using gap
analysis or Super-matrix.
09/19/03
7
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
09/19/03
8
Super-matrix or gap analysis
 Major (4): Outcome is fully introduced, developed and
reinforced throughout the course. Students demonstrate an
“application knowledge” or “understanding.”
 Intermediate (3): Outcome is introduced and further developed
and reinforced in course. Students demonstrate a “working
knowledge” of the outcome.
 Moderate (2): Outcome is introduced and further developed
and reinforced in course. Students demonstrate a “minimal
working knowledge” of the outcome.
 Minor (1): Outcome is introduced in course. Students have a
“talking knowledge” or “awareness” of the outcome.
 Not at all (0)
09/19/03
9
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?
09/19/03
10
Conceptual Framework of QUE
• Stage 3b: Learning outcome mapping assessment
• Using the super-matrix, trace assessment of
learning outcome through the curriculum
• How do we capture student developmental
progress as s/he proceeds randomly through a
series of courses that make up a curriculum?
09/19/03
11
Why we are here - Objectives
Participants demonstrate functioning
knowledge of performance assessments – able
to set criteria, select evidence, and make
judgment about extent to which evidence is
met
 Participants learn about curriculum mapping
and are able to apply the super-matrix to their
own curriculum
09/19/03
12
Agenda
• Plenary Session: Saturday 8:30 – 10:15 AM
• Grant Wiggins
• Assessment and Accountability:
– How to design assessment activities that will reveal
how students are learning more
09/19/03
13
Agenda
Disciplinary Groups: Saturday 10:30 am - noon;
1:00-2:30 pm; 2:45-4:15 pm; Sunday 8:3010:00 am; and 10:15-11:45 am
How are we accomplishing valid and reliable
assessments?
How do you know they work?
Designing rubrics; Using Understanding by
Design
How do various courses provide a student
opportunity to develop a particular learning
outcome?
09/19/03
14
QUE Deliverables
• Department and campus draft learning
outcomes, performance descriptions,
collections of student work, and assessments
of student learning
09/19/03
15
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
09/19/03
16
Next meeting
Each cluster provides evidence of alignment of
courses and curriculum for the disciplines in which
they are involved, using the super-matrix. Apply to
own curriculum – bring information to meeting in
March 2004. As an activity, each discipline group
could find one outcome they could all agree upon.
Then they could "track" that outcome through the
curriculum and talk about how that outcome might be
assessed through a common graded assignment in say
four or five key required courses (or course clusters)
that all the students might take.
09/19/03
17
QUE web site
• QUE Web site is at
Http://www.gsu.edu/que
• private section
– user name standards
– password standards
09/19/03
18

similar documents