Liberal Arts Core Assessment 2014-2015 Executive Summary

Background and Overview In May, 2014, The FLC Faculty Senate passed new Liberal Arts Core Learning Outcomes. These new learning outcomes paved the way for formal assessment of Fort Lewis College’s current general education program as well as the ongoing assessment of the new Liberal Arts Core, which remains in development. Fall 2014 assessment was completed April 2015 and Spring 2015 assignments for assessment have been collected. The second round of assessment will be completed Spring 2016. For both rounds of assessment, a scoring committee made up of faculty members of the LAC Council, the Assessment Committee, and faculty volunteers collected cross-disciplinary samples of students’ written work in their senior seminar / capstone courses. Scoring is based on the AAC&U’s critical thinking and problem solving rubrics. The experience gained from assessment of Fall 2014 work samples has greatly improved the process. The following report identifies protocols created for the collection and de- identification of student work samples, findings of what was learned through scoring Fall 2014 work samples, as well as modifications to the assessment process.

Summary of method for liberal arts core assessment at Fort Lewis College • Faculty teaching capstone senior courses submitted writing samples for each student/group within their course at the end of the term. • Writing samples were scored for critical thinking and problem solving, using the AACU LEAP rubrics. • Writing samples were selected and de-identified through a stratified random sampling approach • Stratification was by area (Science, Social Science, Arts and Humanities, Business, Teacher Education) and within areas by faculty to increase chances that selected writing was not all from one faculty, as was possible. • Approximately 20% of the work samples were scored by faculty volunteers, including individuals from the assessment committee • Data was analyzed across areas and faculty

Findings and Modifications for Liberal Arts Core Assessment Using the LEAP rubrics for critical thinking and problem solving, Fort Lewis College students demonstrated a milestone-level of proficiency. Mean and median scores for each were near 2.5, where scores of 2 and 3 represent milestone proficiency. Scores represent the mean score across components of critical thinking or components of problem solving for each student, thus data show individual-level performance. Scores among students varied with 25 to 75% of students scoring between 1.8 and 2.9 for critical thinking and between 2.0 and 3.0 for problem solving. Fewer than 5% of the students scored above 3.5 or below 1.5 for critical thinking and problem solving competencies, indicating few students demonstrated either capstone or benchmark levels of performance.

Student performance within components of critical thinking indicate that at least some students can perform capstone-level work for each component, although no students demonstrated capstone-level work on all components. 2

Student performance within components of problem solving show some students can perform capstone-level work, but this is achieved less often than for critical thinking. Students can best define problems (PS1).

Procedure for faculty service for liberal arts core assessment For Fall 2014 liberal arts core assessment, faculty scorers were asked to serve by members of the assessment committee with the assurance that a system would be developed to fairly distribute this responsibility among faculty. Faculty senate voted to approve Option 3: Jury- service type system and this opt-out approach for selecting faculty scorers will be implemented in Fall 2015 for Spring 2015 assessment. Procedure has been created and will be rolled out soon.

Future Assessment Procedures/Processes The entire process has been undergoing scrutiny and change ever since the committee began this work in 2014 (prior to that there was not much traction). We believe we have a solid approach now, with a streamlined process for collection of data, process participation, as well as reporting procedures. The November 10 meeting with the A&S Chairs is the first avenue of disseminating the data results to all faculty. Another presentation will be to the Faculty Senate (a Fall 2015 meeting). Also, a presentation to LAC committee has been suggested. Once we have heard from all of those bodies, from which we hope to receive feedback in order to determine how best to disseminate to all faculty, we will proceed in Spring 2016 with those steps. Preliminarily we would have the members of the Assessment Committee who are within an associated discipline offer to go to department meetings to present this info and answer questions. These interactions will also help us with ways to determine how to best use this data by departments, and by Colleges.

Feedback desired from Chairs  Closing the loop: how can we create a simple process for feedback/documentation on how faculty are using this information in their classrooms? For example, we change pedagogy on the run sometimes, but was it in part informed by this assessment data? How can we get feedback on that from departments?

 How can we help departments understand usefulness of process? What exactly do faculty find so problematic about it and how can we attempt to overcome that (buy-in to process)?

 Have we read/interpreted the data in the full report as completely and effectively as we could?

 Have we missed avenues of data interpretation that we could incorporate next time?

2