THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PLAN SURVEY RESULTS, January 2011

Codification:

purple: logistics

green: language /conceptual issues

blue: proposed changes in ILOs /GE ILOS alignment

brown: by-lawchanges

all red shades: structural changes

crimson:procedures aimed at streamlining assessment further

scarlet: extending the number of GE areas assessed within a six-year cycle

Comments:

  1. I think it is important to keep making clear that the four per annum number: a) does not mean that every faculty member will need to be doing four pieces of assessment per year. b) may only be one piece of assessment work, that will cover three of the four ba<x>ses (e.g. focusing on writing could cover program, GE, and institutional goals in one exercise). My only other question is how follow-up work and closing the assessment loop works. In practice, I imagine that we will assess something one year, figure out what changes we need to make, make the changes, and then in the second year implement the changes and assess whether they have made a difference. In reality, then, that may mean we focus on more than four per year. I think we should make that clear. Thanks again, Tatiana, for your sterling work.
  1. Not all goals and outcomes should be measured. Be selective in which outcomes are to be monitored; build a plan from our prioritization of those measurements rather than having to structure our assessment strategy and number of GE and departmental goals according to the assumption that it is inappropriate for an outcome or goal not to be subject to empirical assessment. Dropping this assumption would result in a lighter assessment burden, fewer impacts on majors (whose goals would be restricted by how much assessing they could do around the GE assessment needs), and perhaps a cycle more frequent than every 12 years, which is a very long time that will make progress on assessed measures very hard, if not impossible, to detect.
  1. I like the proposed plan, especially since it simplifies and streamlines the assessment process. I am a bit uneasy over the plan to only assess certain parts of the GE in any six year cycle (although perhaps I misunderstood this part). First, this will mean that any given part of the GE will only be worked on every 12 years or so. In my opinion this is too long a cycle time since too much can change over that period (instructors, students, institutional concerns, etc...). Second, I am concenred over the lack of attention given to certain parts of the GE in the current plan. If assessment is supposed to reflect our real goals and priorities the current plan inadequately addresses these. For example, the lack of attention given to the physical science, life science, and language component of the GE represent a weakening of our committment to and understanding of the liberal arts. I don\'t think that we should re-complicate our plan by adding additional items to work on in any given year or cycle. Instead, I suggest we broaden the scope of our existing institutional and GE learning outcomes to accomodate these areas. I currently teach a physical sciences GE course and am very excited about the possibility of tying assessment of this course to broader, more general ob<x>jectives. Here is my proposal: Incorporate both the physical and life science GE\'s under the christian understanding, critical thinking, information literacy, and quantitative and analytical reasoning portions of our current plan and use the same assessment tools to evaluate these courses. Incorporate other GE areas that are neglected in the first round of the current plan under appropriate institutional and GE ob<x>jectives. These modifications would not only more adequately reflect Westmont\'s mission as a liberal arts school but could potentially shorten our overall cycle time since we could work on the same courses and issues in the next six-year cycle as this one. I realize that a possible concern might be that not all GE courses contribute equally to all ob<x>jectives.For example, students in my physical science course won\'t learn as much christian doctrine as students in doctrine. Admittedly I don\'t know exactly how to address this issue with WASC but I\'d be surprised if they required every course assessed to contribut equally to each ob<x>jective.
  1. I wasn\'t at the session as I needed to attend a student leaders meeting. I\'d love to meet with Tatiana to talk it through more and how I may adjust ICP\'s goals and outcomes. In fact I plan to work on a strategic plan this summer and would like help with it.24Y
  1. Under Institutional Learning Outcomes, I would modify the language as follows: (7th bullet point) \"analyze a topic or human experience using relevant criteria under categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, social status, or disability\"; (8th bullet point) \"analyze global patterns of culture from at least two different perspectives ( . . . )\"; (9th bullet point) \"embrace civic responsibilities and the challenges of life-long learning\"; (10th bullet point): \"identify healthy lifestyle practices and devise effective strategies for enacting them\". Under GE Learning Outcomes, under Students will: (6th bullet point) \"articulate how a particular topic is approached in at least two different cultures of distinct geographical areas\"; (7th bullet point): \"demonstrate mature technique and critical awareness in an artistic production\". These changes are proposed in order to repair either ambiguities in wording or inaccuracies in targeting of the outcomes. 45Y2i have none.
  1. None occur to me, but I have to admit that I have not had time to think carefully about it. Therefore what was presented at Faculty Forum sounded fine, but there may well be modifications that I would suggest had I the time to dig deeper.
  1. Imaginative endeavors seem to have fallen out of the plan. People can\'t think well without imagination or curiosity. What has happened, for instance, to reading imaginatively?
  1. Departments contributing GE courses to the Common Inquiries part of GE assess the relevant part of the Common Inquiries. Departments be able to assess outcomes that do not necessarily align with GE or institutional outcomes. The Institutional Learning Outcome of Creative ex<x>pression should be stated more broadly so that it applies to all creative endeavors in any discipline. The Institutional Learning Outcomes must be vetted and approved by the full faculty. Physical and Emotional Health, Creative ex<x>pression, and Diversity and Global Awareness were just added at some point without faculty approval.The term \"globalization\" is not the same as \"global awareness\" and neither term is appropriate as an educational goal for our students. Something like \"global understanding\" or \"understanding from a global perspective\" would be more appropriate. The proposed match of Critical Thinking and Information Literacy with GE courses of Quantitative and Analytical Reasoning seems very odd.

9. I had a few questions about the new learning standards (I believe there are 8 now?). I was a bit dismayed to see that two standards had shortened their names, and now seem to be very different from what they were previously. Critical and Interdisciplinary Thinking has now become merely Critical Thinking, and Research and Technology has now become Information Literacy. Critical Thinking does not typically include any notion of interdisciplinarity. The phrase has been around for a long time, and it seems unwise to try and define it now to include interdisciplinary thining. The interdisciplinary nature of the Liberal Arts (and Westmont in particular) argues for a prominent place in our standards for interdisciplinarity, and I hope we can reintroduce it. Information Literacy is a library science term, and applies (as it is normally used) only to a narrow range of "research" -- it typically does not include laboratory or field research, nor does it include "technology" in the broader sense. Again, these are important aspects of our program, and I hope we can reintroduce them.

Debra Quest’s response to the Information Literacy concerns: Information Literacy is not merely a library science concept but covers the broad range. The skills are cross-disciplinary in nature. This is a reason why WASC is seriously concerned that these skills are not infused across the academic curriculum.

The full definition of information literacy covers both information seeking, evaluating and ethical skills as well as technology skills for both software and hardware systems.