Thinking Globally GE Assessment 2016-17
Strategy
1. Initial feedback from TG faculty fall 2016 on the CC & student survey questions; syllabi review.
2. Student survey (students who had completed before & students who were currently enrolled in TG GE course) Fall ‘16
3. In-class direct assessment assignment Spring ‘17
4. TG faculty conversation summer ’17 on possible changes to the TG CC & LO
Certification Criteria (CC)
1. describe differences between at least two cultures (one of which is nonwestern and can offer explanations or historical contexts for those differences;
2. recognize the value and significance of other cultures without romanticizing.
3. identify ways in which cultures influence formulations of knowledge; they will identify ways in which they personally are affected;
4. recognize global inequities, injustices, and/or inter-religious issues and commit themselves to thoughtful, concrete responses growing out of their Christian faith;
5. recognize the limits of their global understanding.
Student Learning Outcome (assessed as part of Global Awareness ILO)
Students will be able to articulate how a particular topic is approached in at least two different cultures or distinct geographical areas.
PRELIMINARY INFORMATION GATHERING
TG Courses
There are over 30 TG courses split fairly evenly between the Social Sciences (19) and the Humanities (12), with 1 from the Behavioral and Natural Sciences. Many off-campus programs also have a TG course. For Mexico it is an “integrative seminar,” but for many programs it is a course tied to a particular academic discipline.
Feedback from TG faculty on the CC:
TG faculty pointed out that the term ‘global’ in this GE means “inter-cultural.’ The language of this GE is ten years old and reflects a view of global that emphasizes ‘international’ and ‘cross-cultural.’ Moreover, framing of 'culture' is outdated implying cultures are isolated and rigid rather than porous and interconnected. Accordingly, the CC language points to comparisons rather than connections.
At the same time TG faculty affirmed that the first three CC are important in their courses. The Syllabus Review and wide variety of TG courses also suggests that courses do not address these three evenly or consistently. Faculty also noted that while #4 was important, the wording is so broad that it is difficult to assess. Accordingly, it may not appear as prominently or directly in course syllabi or assignments.
This was corroborated by the Syllabus Review.
Do CCs 1-3 need to be updated and streamlined and 4 unpacked?
AAC&U
One way to locate ourselves is to compare our CC with the ‘value rubrics’ produced by the AAC&U. The spirit of our TG GE is more in line with the “Intercultural Knowledge & Competence” rubric than the “Global Learning” rubric. When our TG GE was crafted 10 years ago these two had not diverged to the degree they have today. Our CC overlap with the “Intercultural Knowledge & Competence” Value rubric categories of “cultural self-awareness” and “knowledge of cultural worldviews” and the “Global Learning” rubric categories of “perspective taking” and “cultural diversity.” This reflects the cross-cultural and international focus of our TG GE.
The AAC&U ‘Global Learning’ rubric categories that we do not address are “global self-awareness,” “personal and social responsibility,” “understanding global systems,” and “applying knowledge to contemporary global contexts.” The first is in relation to the natural and human world, and the other three categories address informed action and advocacy in meeting global challenges. In other words “global” is existential not geographic.
Innovative programs or courses on “global learning” celebrated in AAC&U literature focus on getting students engaged in issues of climate change, sustainability, water, health, migration, inequality, etc. in a way that draws on diverse disciplines and explores the connections between the global and the local.
In Summary
“Global learning” can be understood as a chair with four legs. Those legs are 1) inter-cultural/inter-faith, 2) international, 3) sustainability, and 4) social justice. The seat of the chair where these meet and where students sit down and settle in is understanding and acting on the linkages between them, locally and globally. (Think globally, act locally.)
A single course cannot cover all of these areas. Our TG GE focuses on the first two through an emphasis on understanding religion, culture, and context, including helping students recognize they too have a culture that shapes their point of view.
Our assessment shows we are doing this well.
Our TG Students
The vast majority of students who graduated in 2015-16 fulfilled this GE in humanities courses. 146 students fulfilled this GE through a humanities course, 70 a Social Sciences course, 19 an off-campus program (IS) course, and 12 through the food-systems Kns/Anth 140 course. That humanities and social sciences have approximately the same number of TG courses and yet twice as many students are fulfilling this GE in a humanities course is worth noting. The highest represented departments were English (61) and RS (45) followed by Pol-Sci (31) and History (28). Eng 044, which is lower division and fulfills two GEs, gets far and away the most traffic. It should be kept in mind that these numbers come from the Registrar’s Office and so reflect the first TG course a student took that then fulfilled the GE; they do not reflect how many TG courses a student took overall. In light of that it is worth noting which departments offer more TG courses. For example Religious Studies offers 7 TG courses and history offers 5.
INDIRECT ASSESSMENT Fall 2016 - Student Survey
102 completed surveys by students who completed a TG course before Fall 2016 and
91 completed surveys by students enrolled in a TG course in Fall 2016.
In general the demographic data for both groups was broadly what one would expect.
In the ‘before 2016’ group 58 were seniors and in the ‘current’ students 39 were seniors.
The goal of doing the two different surveys was to check for ‘opt-in bias’ between those who chose to fill in the survey sent out through student life and those who filled it in as part of a course. In actual fact this does not appear to have been a significant issue. Nevertheless, being able to compare the two groups revealed other slight shifts along with considerable consistency.
The cross-section of majors who participated in the surveys was less than satisfying, though perhaps not surprising. For the ‘before fall 2016’ 34 B&NS students, 60 Social Science students, and 33 Humanities students participated. For the “current” student survey 29 B&NS students, 59 Social Sciences students, and 22 Humanities students.[1] These numbers add up to more than the total number of respondents. This may indicate double-majors or students who started, but did not complete, the survey. The heavy weighting of the Social Sciences means that the survey results are not giving us as strong of a cross section of the student body as I would like. Even so, it is noteworthy that in a sample of 36 “before fall” survey students 23 had taken only one TG GE while 13 had taken 2 or more. It may be worth mining the survey or registrar data further to see how many students take one TG course or multiple courses and how this plays out across majors and departments.
Multiple Choice Questions
In response to questions reflecting the different CC, students either “strongly agree” or “agree” that they have learned what we claim to be teaching. Good news indeed.
· There is a slight dip in that “current” students are more likely to “strongly agree” while “before” students “agree.” I think this dip in enthusiasm reflects the perspective of greater distance from the course (and the professor) in these survey results.
Students also “strongly agree” or “agree” that TG is important for their major and for life after graduation.
· Indeed while their assessment of how much they learned took a slight dip from “current” to “before” students, the assessment of how important TG was for life after graduation experienced a slight bump (70% “strongly agree” to 78% “strongly agree”). More of the ‘before’ survey students were seniors.
Short –Answer Questions
In response to the question: “what is one thing you took from your TG course?” “before 2016 students” overwhelmingly reflected the first three or some combination of the first three CC. This is great. At the same time #4 -- Social justice and inequality --was less represented and “concrete responses” was a negligible sub category (mentioned by only two “before” students). ‘Currently enrolled students” showed a wider range.
In response to the question “what do you wish you had learned in your TG course?” 23% of ‘before’ students and 26% of ‘current’ students expressed satisfaction with what they had learned. However, the highest response amongst “before 2016” students (24%) was for more practical application and engagement while 19% of ‘Current’ students stated this. A more subtly phrased sub-category of this area was a desire for guidance on how to respond not only constructively, but Christianly. In other words, help in holding on to their faith and values in light of a newly complicated understanding of cultural diversity and their own cultural subjectivity. This could be seen as a result of the success with the first three CC. Other responses appear shaped by the type of course students took – desire for more depth from a broader course, more breadth in a narrower course, more history in a religion course, more religion in a social science course, etc.
In ‘further comments’ students currently enrolled in a TG GE course generally praised the course, the faculty, or the pedagogy. Students who had completed the TG before Fall 2016 did so as well, but to a lesser degree. Instead there were more comments praising their study abroad experiences.
When asked “what else aided you in thinking globally?” of students who completed a TG course before fall 2016, 58 identified study abroad, and 98 missions trips, urban initiative, or ICP, and 32 internships. From ‘current’students, 55 checked study abroad, 84 missions trips, urban initiative, or ICP, and 34 internships.
DIRECT ASSESSMENT SPRING 2017 -- In Class Writing Prompt in progress…
TALKING POINS
The Good News: students are gaining cross-cultural understanding in TG courses
The Complicating News:
1. “Thinking” – The GE emphasizes “thinking globally,” not “acting locally.” It is possible that an emphasis on the former without the latter leaves students feeling perplexed and paralyzed. The better we do at the first may require doing better at the second. If TG courses remain Thinking-oriented, how or where in the curriculum and college do we hold ourselves and our students accountable for application and action and facilitate the connections between the two?
2. “Gobally” – Inter-cultural, inter-faith, and international understanding are an important part of global. 30 courses currently are designed to deliver it. Where are the other dimensions of “global learning” (social justice, sustainability, and highlighting global-local linkages) happening and how do they get identified as ‘global’ for students and stakeholders?
3. GE -- How do we more clearly articulate and assess what this GE does and does not, can and cannot, contribute to the larger ILO of “global awareness?
1
[1] Almost all the TG courses offered on campus Fall 2016 were Social Science courses.