The Subcommittee on Assessment of General Education (SAGE)

The Subcommittee on Assessment of General Education (SAGE) Meeting Minutes January 27, 2015 2:00 – 3:00pm Fine Arts

Meeting start time: 2:00pm

In Attendance: Jose Amador Elaine Finan Diane Goldsmith Eric Kaldor (ATL) Jim Kinnie Mary Macdonald Valerie Maier-Speredelozzi Paula McGlasson (chair)

Agenda: Review of URI Faculty Survey on General Education Assessment  112 respondents out of 700 (at this point- still open)

Is GEIST dissolved?  Jim: Judith is still in communication with panels  Eric: Interim director not appointed yet, so there is still a need for GEIST to exist

Phase One: How appropriate is the model for the initial assessment of the new Gen Ed Program? 72% positive (somewhat appropriate-very appropriate) responses How appropriate is the faculty workload? 20% of respondents said not appropriate; 55% positive response How important is it to assess rubric as measures of student learning? 50% very important 20% somewhat important After reading about Phase 1, are you more comfortable submitting your course(s) for inclusion in the new Gen Ed Program? 23% yes 35% still concerned, no not submitting* *this could be those who are less comfortable with assessment in general

 The negativity may be from the overall culture of assessment on campus at URI.  Based on the results of this survey, this is the coherent plan that will provide us with the appropriate next step in implementing assessment of the new Gen Ed Program SAGE To-Do  Select and schedule the outcomes to be assessed.  Receive and process feedback and data from Phase One > panels > GEC.  Make recommendations to GEC. o Educating of the faculty about what it means to assess general education is crucial.  Present to GEC –Thursday, February 4th 3-5pm.

Phase 2 The most important practices for data collection: ensure representative samples for each outcome. Those who participate in assessment important practices for data collection: 1. assess all 12 outcomes within a 4-year cycle 2. compare students in different sections of the same course

Which of the following principles are most important to carry into Phase 2 of Gen Ed assessment?  One of the strongest responses: Faculty sampled in assessment cycle should be provided adequate support in assignment design, rubric use, and data submission.

Assignment design –  technology assistance in the form of a Sakai add-on  workshop on how to save time by designing assignments that are aligned to rubrics – easy to assess

Question of compensation/incentive: If you want to teach a Gen Ed course, then you are willing to do this piece of assessment if called upon.  Should remain flexible- possibility of small stipend, maybe toward PD  Is the $100 incentive to participate in the assessment of Gen Ed worth it? o No, but $250 might!  Why incentivize Gen Ed assessment and not programmatic assessment? o Departments can choose to give course release or other incentives to the individual in charge of assessment o Could be the same if chosen for general education assessment  SAGE could be the starting point with the survey results saying that the faculty made it clear that they are concerned with the additional workload that Gen Ed assessment would cause and the need for compensation in some form. o Where would the money come from? Who do we make recommendation to? . Provost . Without a general education director, there is no one to set a budget o A lot of general education courses are taught by those who are not asked to perform “service”… part-time o Motivating factor- no compensation until submission

Which of the following principles are most important in Phase 2 of Gen Ed Assessment? (select up to 5)  62% Assessment data should not be used to evaluate  43% Individual faculty should assess no more than one outcome per year  75% thought that faculty participants should be consulted on the interpretation of results and recommendations for change  62% identifying information of participating students and faculty should be kept confidential.