Outcomes Assessment WASC Essay


Outcomes Assessment: Guidelines, Formats and Criteria for Review of Assessment Plans Guidelines and Format for Submission of Annual Status Reports Assessment Definitions and Issues Assessment Infrastructure Time Line 1993-2003 Principles of Good Practice in Assessment Problematic Issues in Assessment Types of Assessment at CSUSB 1994 Faculty Senate Resolution on Assessment Internet Assessment Links Assessment Funding Assessment Plans and Status Reports General Education Outcomes Assessment Assessment Archives Examples and Analysis of Selected Assessment Plan Models 1998 Outcome Assessment Forum 1994 Taskforce Report on Quality Assurance WASC: Educational Effectiveness Report 2003: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Effectiveness WASC: Educational Effectiveness Report 2003: Student Outcomes Assessment at CSUSB, 1993-2003 Assessment Methods Used by Programs Uses of Assessment Results for Program Improvement CSU Trustee Action on Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Back to top	Theme 1: Becoming a Teaching and Learning Community Reflective Essay on Theme I, Issue No. 5: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment and Program Effectiveness Program Reviews and Measurement of General Achievement and Satisfaction The process of periodic program review is well established in the academic culture at CSUSB. All degree programs are required to undergo a review every five years, which includes a prescribed self-study report, use of off-campus consultants as reviewers, preparation of a summary and recommendations by a university-wide committee, and development by the departments of a action plan for follow up and improvement where needed. The guidelines for the review were recently revised to call for more focus on student learning outcomes and reporting of the findings of annual assessments and evaluation of students, as well as more emphasis on graduate programs, research, community outreach and service, and external funding. A key component of the self-study process is a survey of current students and alumni, which seeks opinion and comments on a wide variety of issues, including advising, satisfaction with instruction, curriculum, and operations of the program. These surveys are corroborated by use of similar questions on surveys of graduating seniors and regular surveys done during quarterly registration, which allows comparison across programs and colleges as well as trend data. Students generally praise the quality of instruction, the preparation, effectiveness, enthusiasm, and level of assistance from faculty. The availability amount and quality of advising, especially for career planning, is the most consistent concern of students. A recent analysis of the advising process in each department has led to increased emphasis on making annual advising mandatory. The campus has implemented a new Student Transition, Advising and Retention Program (STARS http://wasc.csusb.edu/repository/STARS.htm ) along with an on-line degree audit summary for easy analysis and assessment of transfer credit, course planning, and reports on progress toward degree. Each department now is being asked to prepare and publicize a four-year schedule and rotation of course offerings to encourage additional planning and earlier graduation. (See also STARS report on retention efforts http://wasc.csusb.edu/repository/RetentionReport2002.htm ) Our Graduating Student Surveys ( http://ir.csusb.edu/) have yielded a good deal of useful information about Campus Environment. General Attitudes, Educational Expectations and Achievement, CSUSB's Contribution to that Achievement, Experience of Inappropriate Treatment, Satisfaction with the Educational Experience, and future Professional Goals and Activities. The results of these surveys have generally been gratifying and our alumni express a great deal of satisfaction with their experience at Cal State San Bernardino. Issues identified in the commencement survey have been followed up on and probed further in a number of other useful surveys, including the Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS) http://ir.csusb.edu/SNAPS99.pdf , participation in pilot testing of the National Survey of Student Engagement http://wasc.csusb.edu/data/NSSE2002Slides.pdf , the ETS Academic Profile exam of General Education Achievement, and CSU Benchmarking studies. The SNAPS report for 1999 was especially impressive because our campus was rated significantly higher than the average for the CSU system in almost every measure-and our scores had improved in most categories over 10% over the 1994 administration of the survey. Likewise, the use of comparative data from other national instruments and studies is beginning to focus attention on areas where improvement and change is needed. (The findings and implications of these very extensive surveys are discussed in detail in the full report on this Issue and the raw data and analysis for each survey can be found in the Appendix.) With a gradual decline in the percentage responding to mail-in surveys, the campus has turned to use of brief surveys taken of all students as part of the quarterly telephone and web-based registration process. By asking just 3-5 questions of a very large number of students we have been able get better samples and more significant results. These registration surveys also allow us to do better breakdown of response major, age, ethnicity, class rank, and other demographic characteristics. As more students begin to use the Web for registration we will be able to ask additional and more complexly structured questions of each students. Back to top Student Learning Outcomes in the Majors CSUSB has moved forward steadily in its efforts to establish a culture of evidence about our students' learning. On a scale of 1 to 5, with "one," the lowest step, representing reliance on traditional grading methods, step "two" limited to discussion about the need for assessment, step "three" characterized by individual initiatives and experimentation, step "four" signifying organized effort across the institution and step "five" full implementation, CSUSB ranks at number four with a bullet. CSUSB has a number of outcomes assessment structures and processes in place. The outcomes assessment initiative at CSUSB is organized around an infrastructure, institutional funding, an array of planned and tracked assessment initiatives, formative and summative assessment methodologies based on agreed upon programmatic learning goals and objectives, and developing baselines and norms. Overall, assessment practices at CSUSB are being implemented in many areas of the campus in a visible, systematic, and substantial way. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/ ) Although we have advanced steadily over the past decade in the development of outcomes assessment campus wide, there is still more we need to accomplish in order to reach the top of the scale and become an institution where outcomes assessment has been fully implemented across the institution, creating a fully embedded culture of quality characterized by continuous improvement and shared organizational learning. Central to both the university's mission and strategic plan is the improvement of student learning through assessment of programs. The assessment of student learning is a central strategy in CSUSB's primary goal to become "a learning community that excels in creating, applying, and exchanging knowledge." (See http://www.csusb.edu/president/ and http://www.csusb.edu/president/strategicplan.html ) For nearly a decade, CSUSB has worked systematically to organize itself to attain its educational objectives through outcomes assessment. The campus led the CSU system movement in student learning outcomes in the early 1990's, and our assessment plans and methods were used by the CSU Chancellor's office as a model for other campuses to emulate and build on. Assessment plans have been developed for most of the majors and a significant number of departments have already evaluated their programs under self-designed and institution-approved instruments, reported their results, and begun to use the findings for program improvement. Since 1994, CSUSB has been working to ensure that programs have clear academic standards for student achievement in place. As of Spring 2003, 83% of the undergraduate and graduate programs at CSUSB (excluding Interdisciplinary programs) have submitted outcomes assessment plans to the University Outcomes Assessment Committee. Of those submitted, 69% have been approved for implementation by the committee. Overall, 58% of the undergraduate and graduate programs at CSUSB (excluding Interdisciplinary programs) have university-approved outcomes assessment plans. In addition to the assessment plans, programs have been required to submit annual assessment status reports each year since 1998. In their reports, programs outline their assessment activities, findings, and how they have used the results for program improvement. Forming an integral component of CSUSB's commitment to continuous program improvement and student learning, the annual status reports have begun to provide us with a systematic method to gather specific information on student learning and how departments are using what they have learned for program improvement. CSUSB makes this information public through its annual Accountability reports to the CSU Board of Trustees. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/bycollege.html and http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/statusrpt.html ) Evidence contained in the assessment plans and status reports, suggests that CSUSB is gradually becoming an assessment-oriented institution where direct evidence of student learning is being used by programs to ascertain whether they are achieving their key educational goals. One result of outcomes assessment has been an increase in the spirit of inquiry and self-study within programs. Status reports show that the majority of programs use assessment information to facilitate curriculum discussions at faculty meetings, curriculum committee meetings, and faculty retreats. Programs have begun also to employ their assessment findings to shape curriculum. They have used their assessment findings to add and delete courses, change course sequences, revise course content, guide changes in degree programs, develop new degree program options, change degree requirements, and justify past curriculum changes to show program improvement resulting from those changes. For other programs, assessment information has led to a greater emphasis on advising, and other institutional functions designed to enhance student development, resulting in some departments' development of new avenues of career exploration and career services for their students. For other programs, the results from their outcomes assessment activities have led to changes in instructional emphasis for current faculty and changes in emphasis for new and vacant faculty positions. Assessment information has enabled some programs to strengthen ties with the community by sharing assessment information with alumni, review boards, and advisory boards composed of community leaders. Signaling a growing willingness to engage in a continuous process of self-examination, more than half of the departments with an approved assessment plan report that besides aiding them in curriculum and staffing decisions, assessment information is useful in helping them to further refine their assessment methods and implement new ones. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/improvements.html .) Although the campus has made significant progress in organizing itself to become a learning community committed to the use of outcomes assessment to improve student learning, there are still a number of items we need to accomplish to achieve full implementation. First, in order to demonstrate in a more comprehensive manner that learning is occurring and that our key educational goals are being achieved, all of our programs, including the undergraduate and graduate degree programs must be involved in the assessment process. In addition, we need to create a comprehensive student database by combining the information on student learning provided by the academic programs with the many other university activities that yield a wealth of information about our students. These measures include our Graduating Student Surveys, TRACS surveys, benchmarking and customer satisfaction surveys, and such system-wide and national surveys as the NSSE and SNAPS. Such a step would provide a common tool for all members of the University to engage in a continuous process of self-examination whose outcome is the enhancement of student learning at CSUSB. Furthermore, university-wide engagement in student learning would contribute greatly to our efforts to create learning communities comprised of groups of students and faculty, sharing common interests and goals. The implementation of assessment university-wide and the creation of a common database would assist the CSUSB Learning Research Institute (LRI) whose charge is to promote interdisciplinary scholarly focus on teaching and learning and how it may be improved. The University needs to align more closely its outcomes assessment structures and processes with other core university functions involved in helping CSUSB meet its institutional objectives and standards of academic achievement so that they are mutually supporting. We need to coordinate our outcomes assessment efforts with our efforts in the area of faculty development. A natural point of linkage is with the Teaching Resource Center (TRC). The TRC's substantial work in the area of faculty development, especially its support of teaching, is one of the institutional strategies that helps improve learning through effective teaching, thus contributing to educational effectiveness. The bridging of outcomes assessment and the initiatives of the TRC can contribute to our educational effectiveness by what leading to classroom assessment, classroom research, and the use of classroom assignments for assessment. We also need to coordinate our outcomes assessment efforts with the work of the University General Education and Curriculum committees. We would like to establish a linkage between outcomes assessment and the processes of advising, and mentoring, especially the activities of the Office of Academic Services and Advising, so that familiarizing students with the requirements for program completion goes hand-in-hand with their understanding of the learning goals and objectives for the major. We have recently begun to connect assessment with the broader process of program review, so that these formal self-studies reflect a greater emphasis on student learning outcomes. Program reviews cover many different dimensions of a department's functioning, including average class size, number of majors, and faculty resources. Student learning and development is another of the many aspects of the unit that need to be examined as part of the departmental self-study. By incorporating assessment more integrally into the review process, the campus will become more in line with state, regional, and national accrediting agencies that are now heavily focused on student learning outcomes. Not only does this revision in the self-study document lead to increased efficiency and decrease the duplication of efforts, more important, it will highlight the integral link between inputs (number of faculty, of resources, a library holdings, etc) and outcomes, the measurement of student learning according to agreed upon academic goals. As our outcomes assessment efforts become more established and mature we anticipate creating a closer link between outcomes assessment and the program planning and budgeting process. Our goal is to link outcomes assessment and the program approval and revision process. Substantial revisions in existing programs and decisions about future ones would be based on information gained from student learning outcomes. Finally, the results of assessment must be used to improve assessment itself. We need to establish a mechanism by which faculty can critically examine the assessment process to see if it is providing the information they need for themselves and their students. Back to top General Education Outcomes Assessment Although CSUSB ranks squarely at number "four" based on its development of organized and systematic outcomes assessment measures for the majors, we are probably closer to being at step "three" in our development of outcomes assessment for general education. While our assessment for the majors is organized around an infrastructure, institutional funding, an array of planned and tracked assessment initiatives, formative and summative assessment methodologies based on agreed upon programmatic learning goals and objectives, and developing baselines and norms, our assessment of general education is not yet developed to the same degree. Currently, general educational outcomes assessment is characterized by individual institutional initiatives and experimentation as a way to formulate a sustainable university-wide assessment infrastructure. The total GE program is reviewed every five years with a focus each year on one of the categories (Basic Skills, and breath areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Multi-cultural and Gender Perspectives and Lifelong Learning). This review by the University GE Committee has focused primarily on analysis of course syllabi, assignments, and the consistency and rigor of the course content as well as whether each course continues to meet the criteria established for the particular category. Very minor modifications and changes in the courses and curriculum have resulted from this overall review of the GE program. Since 2000, we have made a number of major steps in our development of assessment for the General Education Program. Faculty members serving on the University General Education Outcomes Assessment Committee and the General Education Breadth Area Assessment Committees have developed learning goals and objectives for the four General Education Basic Skills areas (Written Communication, Oral Communication, Mathematics, and Critical Thinking) and the three General Education Breadth areas (Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social and Behavioral Sciences). (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/BasicSkills.html and http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/BreadthArea.html .) They based the goals on university-wide input from faculty, department chairs, and university, college and department GE, curriculum and outcomes assessment representatives and carefully aligned them with the University General Education Policy. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/Alignment.html .) During the 2000-2001 AY, we began our assessment of the basic skills areas by administering the Academic Profile (ETS). Several issues emerged from our use of this instrument. Because it did not focus on our curriculum, specifically our outcomes goals and objectives, the information we received from the Academic Profile was too general and less useful than we had hoped as an indicator of the effectiveness of our GE program. This is a problem inherent in such surveys. In several classes, students completed the exam as an "extra credit" option, resulting in little incentive to perform well. In addition, our campus' scores were below the mean. One major outgrowth of our experience with the Academic Profile was our realization that we need to develop local instruments that will more readily assess our particular constellation of courses. Therefore, in Fall 2002, the GE assessment committees developed and began piloting campus-based embedded assessment of student learning in the breadth areas. To date they have piloted questions in fifteen general education breadth area courses, involving nearly 2,000 students. In spring 2003 the breadth area committees began their analysis of the results from the pilot project with particular focus on what student responses tell us about (1) the alignment between the goals and objectives and types of embedded exam questions, (2) how students are meeting the goals and objectives, (3) the usefulness of the data in closing the assessment loop and shaping curriculum, and (4) the feasibility of developing a faculty-supported sustainable assessment infrastructure for CSUSB's General Education program. We have learned that although our exam questions and learning goals parallel one another closely, we need to develop mechanisms to ensure consistent alignment, especially as we assess more and more courses. Our preliminary data suggests that our students' performance is adequate, ranging from 70 to 76 percent in correct responses to the embedded exam questions, and over time, additional findings will be valuable in helping us shape and improve our GE curriculum. The pilot has shown us that our biggest challenge lies in the development of a sustainable assessment infrastructure for CSUSB's General Education program. This challenge stems from two characteristics of our GE program: its size, students must complete 82 quarter units, and, even more problematic, the range and diversity of the program's more than 150 courses from which students may choose. The results of our pilot project suggest that a "one-size-fits-all" structure and the same methodology are not practicable for our program. Besides our efforts to develop embedded assessment for the GE program, CSUSB engages in a number of other GE assessment activities, especially in the area of basic skills. We screen the math and writing skills of all our incoming freshmen (EPT and ELM exams), and require them to take remedial classes if their skills are below a set standard. Our upper-division writing requirement requires students to achieve proficiency in critical thinking, organizational skills, and the ability to use evidence. The upper-division writing requirement is also a means by which we assess the writing skills of all students entering our master's programs either by exam or by course enrollment. (See the Full Report on this topic of review and assessment of General Education at: http://wasc.csusb.edu/edueffrev/thm1/thm1iss5/thm1iss5(15).htm) Adobe Acrobat Reader . Back to top

Outcomes Assessment:

Guidelines, Formats and Criteria for Review of Assessment Plans

Guidelines and Format for Submission of Annual Status Reports

Assessment Definitions and Issues

Assessment Infrastructure

Time Line 1993-2003

Principles of Good Practice in Assessment

Problematic Issues in Assessment

Types of Assessment at CSUSB

1994 Faculty Senate Resolution on Assessment

Internet Assessment Links

Assessment Funding

Assessment Plans and Status Reports

General Education Outcomes Assessment

Assessment Archives

Examples and Analysis of Selected Assessment Plan Models

1998 Outcome Assessment Forum

1994 Taskforce Report on Quality Assurance

WASC: Educational Effectiveness Report 2003: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Effectiveness

WASC: Educational Effectiveness Report 2003: Student Outcomes Assessment at CSUSB, 1993-2003

Assessment Methods Used by Programs

Uses of Assessment Results for Program Improvement

CSU Trustee Action on Student Learning Outcomes Assessment

Back to top

Theme 1: Becoming a Teaching and Learning Community

Reflective Essay on Theme I, Issue No. 5: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment and Program Effectiveness

Program Reviews and Measurement of General Achievement and Satisfaction

The process of periodic program review is well established in the academic culture at CSUSB. All degree programs are required to undergo a review every five years, which includes a prescribed self-study report, use of off-campus consultants as reviewers, preparation of a summary and recommendations by a university-wide committee, and development by the departments of a action plan for follow up and improvement where needed. The guidelines for the review were recently revised to call for more focus on student learning outcomes and reporting of the findings of annual assessments and evaluation of students, as well as more emphasis on graduate programs, research, community outreach and service, and external funding.

A key component of the self-study process is a survey of current students and alumni, which seeks opinion and comments on a wide variety of issues, including advising, satisfaction with instruction, curriculum, and operations of the program. These surveys are corroborated by use of similar questions on surveys of graduating seniors and regular surveys done during quarterly registration, which allows comparison across programs and colleges as well as trend data. Students generally praise the quality of instruction, the preparation, effectiveness, enthusiasm, and level of assistance from faculty. The availability amount and quality of advising, especially for career planning, is the most consistent concern of students. A recent analysis of the advising process in each department has led to increased emphasis on making annual advising mandatory. The campus has implemented a new Student Transition, Advising and Retention Program (STARS http://wasc.csusb.edu/repository/STARS.htm ) along with an on-line degree audit summary for easy analysis and assessment of transfer credit, course planning, and reports on progress toward degree. Each department now is being asked to prepare and publicize a four-year schedule and rotation of course offerings to encourage additional planning and earlier graduation. (See also STARS report on retention efforts http://wasc.csusb.edu/repository/RetentionReport2002.htm )

Our Graduating Student Surveys ( http://ir.csusb.edu/) have yielded a good deal of useful information about Campus Environment. General Attitudes, Educational Expectations and Achievement, CSUSB's Contribution to that Achievement, Experience of Inappropriate Treatment, Satisfaction with the Educational Experience, and future Professional Goals and Activities. The results of these surveys have generally been gratifying and our alumni express a great deal of satisfaction with their experience at Cal State San Bernardino. Issues identified in the commencement survey have been followed up on and probed further in a number of other useful surveys, including the Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS) http://ir.csusb.edu/SNAPS99.pdf , participation in pilot testing of the National Survey of Student Engagement http://wasc.csusb.edu/data/NSSE2002Slides.pdf , the ETS Academic Profile exam of General Education Achievement, and CSU Benchmarking studies. The SNAPS report for 1999 was especially impressive because our campus was rated significantly higher than the average for the CSU system in almost every measure-and our scores had improved in most categories over 10% over the 1994 administration of the survey. Likewise, the use of comparative data from other national instruments and studies is beginning to focus attention on areas where improvement and change is needed. (The findings and implications of these very extensive surveys are discussed in detail in the full report on this Issue and the raw data and analysis for each survey can be found in the Appendix.)

With a gradual decline in the percentage responding to mail-in surveys, the campus has turned to use of brief surveys taken of all students as part of the quarterly telephone and web-based registration process. By asking just 3-5 questions of a very large number of students we have been able get better samples and more significant results. These registration surveys also allow us to do better breakdown of response major, age, ethnicity, class rank, and other demographic characteristics. As more students begin to use the Web for registration we will be able to ask additional and more complexly structured questions of each students.
Back to top

Student Learning Outcomes in the Majors

CSUSB has moved forward steadily in its efforts to establish a culture of evidence about our students' learning. On a scale of 1 to 5, with "one," the lowest step, representing reliance on traditional grading methods, step "two" limited to discussion about the need for assessment, step "three" characterized by individual initiatives and experimentation, step "four" signifying organized effort across the institution and step "five" full implementation, CSUSB ranks at number four with a bullet.

CSUSB has a number of outcomes assessment structures and processes in place. The outcomes assessment initiative at CSUSB is organized around an infrastructure, institutional funding, an array of planned and tracked assessment initiatives, formative and summative assessment methodologies based on agreed upon programmatic learning goals and objectives, and developing baselines and norms. Overall, assessment practices at CSUSB are being implemented in many areas of the campus in a visible, systematic, and substantial way. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/ )

Although we have advanced steadily over the past decade in the development of outcomes assessment campus wide, there is still more we need to accomplish in order to reach the top of the scale and become an institution where outcomes assessment has been fully implemented across the institution, creating a fully embedded culture of quality characterized by continuous improvement and shared organizational learning.

Central to both the university's mission and strategic plan is the improvement of student learning through assessment of programs. The assessment of student learning is a central strategy in CSUSB's primary goal to become "a learning community that excels in creating, applying, and exchanging knowledge." (See http://www.csusb.edu/president/ and http://www.csusb.edu/president/strategicplan.html )

For nearly a decade, CSUSB has worked systematically to organize itself to attain its educational objectives through outcomes assessment. The campus led the CSU system movement in student learning outcomes in the early 1990's, and our assessment plans and methods were used by the CSU Chancellor's office as a model for other campuses to emulate and build on. Assessment plans have been developed for most of the majors and a significant number of departments have already evaluated their programs under self-designed and institution-approved instruments, reported their results, and begun to use the findings for program improvement.

Since 1994, CSUSB has been working to ensure that programs have clear academic standards for student achievement in place. As of Spring 2003, 83% of the undergraduate and graduate programs at CSUSB (excluding Interdisciplinary programs) have submitted outcomes assessment plans to the University Outcomes Assessment Committee. Of those submitted, 69% have been approved for implementation by the committee. Overall, 58% of the undergraduate and graduate programs at CSUSB (excluding Interdisciplinary programs) have university-approved outcomes assessment plans.

In addition to the assessment plans, programs have been required to submit annual assessment status reports each year since 1998. In their reports, programs outline their assessment activities, findings, and how they have used the results for program improvement. Forming an integral component of CSUSB's commitment to continuous program improvement and student learning, the annual status reports have begun to provide us with a systematic method to gather specific information on student learning and how departments are using what they have learned for program improvement. CSUSB makes this information public through its annual Accountability reports to the CSU Board of Trustees. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/bycollege.html and http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/statusrpt.html )

Evidence contained in the assessment plans and status reports, suggests that CSUSB is gradually becoming an assessment-oriented institution where direct evidence of student learning is being used by programs to ascertain whether they are achieving their key educational goals. One result of outcomes assessment has been an increase in the spirit of inquiry and self-study within programs. Status reports show that the majority of programs use assessment information to facilitate curriculum discussions at faculty meetings, curriculum committee meetings, and faculty retreats. Programs have begun also to employ their assessment findings to shape curriculum. They have used their assessment findings to add and delete courses, change course sequences, revise course content, guide changes in degree programs, develop new degree program options, change degree requirements, and justify past curriculum changes to show program improvement resulting from those changes.

For other programs, assessment information has led to a greater emphasis on advising, and other institutional functions designed to enhance student development, resulting in some departments' development of new avenues of career exploration and career services for their students. For other programs, the results from their outcomes assessment activities have led to changes in instructional emphasis for current faculty and changes in emphasis for new and vacant faculty positions. Assessment information has enabled some programs to strengthen ties with the community by sharing assessment information with alumni, review boards, and advisory boards composed of community leaders. Signaling a growing willingness to engage in a continuous process of self-examination, more than half of the departments with an approved assessment plan report that besides aiding them in curriculum and staffing decisions, assessment information is useful in helping them to further refine their assessment methods and implement new ones. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/improvements.html .)

Although the campus has made significant progress in organizing itself to become a learning community committed to the use of outcomes assessment to improve student learning, there are still a number of items we need to accomplish to achieve full implementation. First, in order to demonstrate in a more comprehensive manner that learning is occurring and that our key educational goals are being achieved, all of our programs, including the undergraduate and graduate degree programs must be involved in the assessment process. In addition, we need to create a comprehensive student database by combining the information on student learning provided by the academic programs with the many other university activities that yield a wealth of information about our students. These measures include our Graduating Student Surveys, TRACS surveys, benchmarking and customer satisfaction surveys, and such system-wide and national surveys as the NSSE and SNAPS. Such a step would provide a common tool for all members of the University to engage in a continuous process of self-examination whose outcome is the enhancement of student learning at CSUSB. Furthermore, university-wide engagement in student learning would contribute greatly to our efforts to create learning communities comprised of groups of students and faculty, sharing common interests and goals. The implementation of assessment university-wide and the creation of a common database would assist the CSUSB Learning Research Institute (LRI) whose charge is to promote interdisciplinary scholarly focus on teaching and learning and how it may be improved.

The University needs to align more closely its outcomes assessment structures and processes with other core university functions involved in helping CSUSB meet its institutional objectives and standards of academic achievement so that they are mutually supporting. We need to coordinate our outcomes assessment efforts with our efforts in the area of faculty development. A natural point of linkage is with the Teaching Resource Center (TRC). The TRC's substantial work in the area of faculty development, especially its support of teaching, is one of the institutional strategies that helps improve learning through effective teaching, thus contributing to educational effectiveness. The bridging of outcomes assessment and the initiatives of the TRC can contribute to our educational effectiveness by what leading to classroom assessment, classroom research, and the use of classroom assignments for assessment. We also need to coordinate our outcomes assessment efforts with the work of the University General Education and Curriculum committees. We would like to establish a linkage between outcomes assessment and the processes of advising, and mentoring, especially the activities of the Office of Academic Services and Advising, so that familiarizing students with the requirements for program completion goes hand-in-hand with their understanding of the learning goals and objectives for the major.

We have recently begun to connect assessment with the broader process of program review, so that these formal self-studies reflect a greater emphasis on student learning outcomes. Program reviews cover many different dimensions of a department's functioning, including average class size, number of majors, and faculty resources.

Student learning and development is another of the many aspects of the unit that need to be examined as part of the departmental self-study. By incorporating assessment more integrally into the review process, the campus will become more in line with state, regional, and national accrediting agencies that are now heavily focused on student learning outcomes. Not only does this revision in the self-study document lead to increased efficiency and decrease the duplication of efforts, more important, it will highlight the integral link between inputs (number of faculty, of resources, a library holdings, etc) and outcomes, the measurement of student learning according to agreed upon academic goals.

As our outcomes assessment efforts become more established and mature we anticipate creating a closer link between outcomes assessment and the program planning and budgeting process. Our goal is to link outcomes assessment and the program approval and revision process. Substantial revisions in existing programs and decisions about future ones would be based on information gained from student learning outcomes.

Finally, the results of assessment must be used to improve assessment itself. We need to establish a mechanism by which faculty can critically examine the assessment process to see if it is providing the information they need for themselves and their students.
Back to top

General Education Outcomes Assessment

Although CSUSB ranks squarely at number "four" based on its development of organized and systematic outcomes assessment measures for the majors, we are probably closer to being at step "three" in our development of outcomes assessment for general education. While our assessment for the majors is organized around an infrastructure, institutional funding, an array of planned and tracked assessment initiatives, formative and summative assessment methodologies based on agreed upon programmatic learning goals and objectives, and developing baselines and norms, our assessment of general education is not yet developed to the same degree. Currently, general educational outcomes assessment is characterized by individual institutional initiatives and experimentation as a way to formulate a sustainable university-wide assessment infrastructure.

The total GE program is reviewed every five years with a focus each year on one of the categories (Basic Skills, and breath areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Multi-cultural and Gender Perspectives and Lifelong Learning). This review by the University GE Committee has focused primarily on analysis of course syllabi, assignments, and the consistency and rigor of the course content as well as whether each course continues to meet the criteria established for the particular category. Very minor modifications and changes in the courses and curriculum have resulted from this overall review of the GE program.

Since 2000, we have made a number of major steps in our development of assessment for the General Education Program. Faculty members serving on the University General Education Outcomes Assessment Committee and the General Education Breadth Area Assessment Committees have developed learning goals and objectives for the four General Education Basic Skills areas (Written Communication, Oral Communication, Mathematics, and Critical Thinking) and the three General Education Breadth areas (Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social and Behavioral Sciences). (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/BasicSkills.html and http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/BreadthArea.html .) They based the goals on university-wide input from faculty, department chairs, and university, college and department GE, curriculum and outcomes assessment representatives and carefully aligned them with the University General Education Policy. (See http://gradstudies.csusb.edu/outcome/Alignment.html .)

During the 2000-2001 AY, we began our assessment of the basic skills areas by administering the Academic Profile (ETS). Several issues emerged from our use of this instrument. Because it did not focus on our curriculum, specifically our outcomes goals and objectives, the information we received from the Academic Profile was too general and less useful than we had hoped as an indicator of the effectiveness of our GE program. This is a problem inherent in such surveys. In several classes, students completed the exam as an "extra credit" option, resulting in little incentive to perform well. In addition, our campus' scores were below the mean.

One major outgrowth of our experience with the Academic Profile was our realization that we need to develop local instruments that will more readily assess our particular constellation of courses. Therefore, in Fall 2002, the GE assessment committees developed and began piloting campus-based embedded assessment of student learning in the breadth areas. To date they have piloted questions in fifteen general education breadth area courses, involving nearly 2,000 students.

In spring 2003 the breadth area committees began their analysis of the results from the pilot project with particular focus on what student responses tell us about (1) the alignment between the goals and objectives and types of embedded exam questions, (2) how students are meeting the goals and objectives, (3) the usefulness of the data in closing the assessment loop and shaping curriculum, and (4) the feasibility of developing a faculty-supported sustainable assessment infrastructure for CSUSB's General Education program. We have learned that although our exam questions and learning goals parallel one another closely, we need to develop mechanisms to ensure consistent alignment, especially as we assess more and more courses. Our preliminary data suggests that our students' performance is adequate, ranging from 70 to 76 percent in correct responses to the embedded exam questions, and over time, additional findings will be valuable in helping us shape and improve our GE curriculum. The pilot has shown us that our biggest challenge lies in the development of a sustainable assessment infrastructure for CSUSB's General Education program. This challenge stems from two characteristics of our GE program: its size, students must complete 82 quarter units, and, even more problematic, the range and diversity of the program's more than 150 courses from which students may choose. The results of our pilot project suggest that a "one-size-fits-all" structure and the same methodology are not practicable for our program.

Besides our efforts to develop embedded assessment for the GE program, CSUSB engages in a number of other GE assessment activities, especially in the area of basic skills. We screen the math and writing skills of all our incoming freshmen (EPT and ELM exams), and require them to take remedial classes if their skills are below a set standard. Our upper-division writing requirement requires students to achieve proficiency in critical thinking, organizational skills, and the ability to use evidence. The upper-division writing requirement is also a means by which we assess the writing skills of all students entering our master's programs either by exam or by course enrollment.

(See the Full Report on this topic of review and assessment of General Education at: http://wasc.csusb.edu/edueffrev/thm1/thm1iss5/thm1iss5(15).htm)
Adobe Acrobat Reader

.

Back to top