The 1999 Plan devoted considerable attention to the
assessment of general education learning outcomes. From an interview with a
previous dean, it was learned that the process to generate the home-grown
general education assessment framework was intensive over a short period of time
with wide participation from the faculty. The detail and attention demonstrated
in the 1999 Plan that was faculty based and does not appear to be a replication
of another institution’s plan to assess general education. Within the
framework of defining the centrality of general education, it has been common to
see institutions struggle with the design of the general education component. At
LCO Ojibwa Community College, faculty are to be commended for their work and
enthusiasm evidenced by the format and detail of the general education
assessment component.
Eleven general education outcomes, identified by faculty
and tied to courses in each program of study, led to learning objectives for
which there were proposed “Means of Assessments.” Some of the assessment
activities were tied to rubrics written by faculty in order to evaluate
students. Nineteen different forms were included in the 1999 Plan Appendix.
These forms provide the reader with detailed information on explicitly
identified outcomes, objectives, assessment activities, and scoring rubrics and
other forms of data collection.
A calendar of general education assessment was included
with the 1999 Plan, however, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that
most of the assessment was scheduled to occur at the end of the semester. Using
the final days of the semester to evaluate student performances reinforces
summative evaluation. At the end of a course, there is not the opportunity for
students to receive feedback in order to demonstrate within-course improvement
of their skills and abilities. The 1999 Plan calendar only suggests that end of
semester performance evaluations took place. It is not known whether or not
syllabi aspired to the calendar for assessment or if additional means of
assessment occurred. Until an examination of individual syllabi is done, the
level of implementation cannot be stated in this report.
While summative assessment is not entirely inappropriate
when scoring rubrics and minimal competencies have been established, there still
may exist a temptation to think about grades as a synonym for assessment. Dr.
Cecilia Lopez, in her well-attended sessions on assessment at NCA Annual
Meetings (2001 and 2002), has consistently emphasized in her speech and in
handouts of her presentations that grades are “non-measures” of student
learning and thus, grades should be avoided at all costs. By scheduling means of
assessment earlier in the semester, there would be opportunity for feedback to
students and the avoidance of a “grading psychology” that would more likely
predominate at the conclusion of a semester.
Closer inspection of the charts of the general education
component (beginning on page 33 of the 1999 Plan) reveals some inconsistency in
the column labeled “Means of Assessment.” Some of these “means of
assessment” contain what are essentially benchmarks. Means of Assessment
commonly indicate the various activities, performances, assignments, surveys,
portfolios and other artifacts produced by the students to demonstrate whether
or not they are achieving the objectives set out for them. Benchmarks are
generally defined as a specified level of performance that if met, signify that
course objectives are being met. While some benchmarks, as originally written
are tied to percentiles of students earning a course grade, they are not
appropriate measures of student outcomes. Since the writing of the 1999 Plan one
division discussed this issue during the 2001 spring semester and made
suggestions to remove all references of percentiles of grades. This process of
faculty discussion and suggestions to revise demonstrates that the faculty did
revisit the 1999 Plan during the 2001 spring semester and in order to conform to
good practices in assessing student outcomes.
Another detail that needs to be addressed is the
development of a more general conceptual framework that ties more specifically
the specific assessment activities to objectives when appropriate. As faculty
members continue to fine-tune their syllabi to address assessment objectives and
activities, the revision of the Plan will better lay out these relationships. An
individual assignment can meet several objectives at once, and when combined
with its scoring rubric with criteria set out, this will help everyone,
students, faculty, the assessment coordinator, administration, and accreditation
teams identify in a more user-friendly way “what goes where and how.”
Because assessment itself is an ongoing continuous improvement process, as
faculty revisit their syllabi and take special efforts to incorporate course
objectives and specific assessment activities keyed to these objectives, the
conceptual framework will improve in its operationalization.
In summary, the General Education Assessment Plan contains a detailed framework of general education outcomes, tied to objectives. Associated with the objectives are the columns entitled “Means of Assessment.” The conceptual framework is appropriate for general education assessment. Areas needing attention are: The scheduling and management of the assessment plan, the issue of course grades, and further definition of benchmarks, as well as the utility of the plan itself. Some of these issues have been discussed during the spring 2001 semester. Plans are underway to increase familiarity with assessment design and implementation.