How to use this page
First, log in (upper right). Then click Edit and replace the question marks with the appropriate numbers. (Note that in "Wiki Markup" view the numbers will not line up with the column headings. If that bothers you, use the "Rich Text" view.)
For "Pct." indicate the percentage of students assessed as a fraction of all students taking gen ed courses in your area (No need to include the percent symbol.)
Under "Reflection," please write a bit in answer to each question, replacing the italicized placeholder text with your comments.
Click Save to save your edit. (If you like, you can click "Preview" first to check your work.) You can edit the page as many times as you like.
2007-2008 Results
Outcome | Semester Assessment Conducted | No. Assessed | Pct. | Pct. Exceeding | Pct. Meeting | Pct. Approaching | Pct. Not Meeting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge of a basic narrative of American history: political, economic, social, and cultural, including knowledge of unity and diversity in American society (unity/diversity knowledge measured separately - see below) | Sp 08 | 173 | ? | 51 | 38 | 7 | 3 |
Knowledge of unity and diversity in American society | Sp 08 | 169 | ? | 46 | 43 | 8 | 4 |
Knowledge of common institutions in American society and how they have affected different groups | Sp 08 | 181 | ? | 50 | 41 | 9 | 1 |
Understanding of America's evolving relationship with the rest of the world | Sp 08 | 173 | ? | 29 | 47 | 17 | 6 |
Understanding of the distinct, overlapping, and shared histories of people based on varied identities and experiences, especially those connected to at least two of the following: race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, religion, and disability | Sp 08 | 129 | ? | 36 | 46 | 12 | 6 |
Understanding of the causes and effects of inequalities, past and present, rooted in American social, economic, legal, and political structures, and of efforts to eradicate those structural inequalities | Sp 08 | 132 | ? | 39 | 47 | 11 | 3 |
Reflection
What were the major findings of this assessment?
Oberg: The evidence collected could lead to a conclusion that Geneseo is achieving its learning outcomes in the US History requirement. As the table above indicates, a huge percentage of the students assessed were meeting or exceeding the stated learning outcomes. However, only a handful of professors participated in assessment: Kleiman, Behrend and Crosby from history, Granger and Morse from Education, and Bearden and Tamura from Sociology. Not all of them assessed every category. Only two, for instance, assessed standards four and five. One created one category for Standard One. Because of the tiny portion of instructors who participated, I do not feel drawing any conclusions about how well SUNY Geneseo is achieving its stated learning outcomes. Any statement would be based on an inadequate sampling and be of little validity. One conclusion is inescapable: until faculty across the discipline area begin to take assessment seriously, we will not have an accurate measure of how well we are doing. Education, history and sociology all participate well; adjunct instructors did not participate at all from any department, and the U Courses in other disciplines were not assessed at all.
In light of these findings, what actions might be taken to improve teaching and learning?
Oberg: Again, we should not take action on the basis of incomplete information. I would urge that steps be taken to compel faculty in the relevant courses to participate in assessment. All received invitations to an assessment meeting earlier this semester. Few showed up.. All received three emails over the course of the semester describing the process. No body can claim ignorance of the process. If we are to take the assessment process seriously (and, again, there seems to me abundant evidence that most faculty do not) we must ensure that all courses participate.
What might other gen ed areas learn from your assessment?
Replace this text with your comments.