1. Program Review and General Education Assessment at the University at Albany: Past, Present and Future Barbara Wilkinson Assistant Director for Assessment University at Albany

2. Procedures for Program Review Departments (programs within larger departments) scheduled for first cycle of review from 2002-2003 through 2007-2008. Self-study document includes:  Mission and comparison with other colleges and universities;  Program requirements, advisement process, enrollment trends, assessment plan;  Faculty hiring procedures, responsibilities, tenure;  Support, facilities, library holdings.

3. Department/Program Profiles: Data Available on IR Website Enrollment of majors; Full Time Equivalents, Faculty and Students; Student/Faculty ratio; Degrees Awarded; Number of Assistantships.

4. Council on Academic Assessment Responsibilities:  Review self-study documents and external reviewer reports.  Prepare brief summary report for campus senate on self-study adherence to guidelines.

5. Faculty Feedback on the Program Review Process Approved by campus IRB. Department chairs with programs reviewed during the past two years were send email invitations to be interviewed. Those who agreed and were available during June 6 th -14 th participated (convenience sample!). Three faculty from three departments participated.

6. Questions Asked: Question: How were you involved in the program review process? Follow-up: In what ways did you participate? Question: What do you think are some major goals/consequences of program review for your department? Question: What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses in the program review process on this campus?

7. Response Trends: Comments made by at least two participants. Another university project affected writing the self-study document. Review process led to faculty discussions of what they are doing. Feedback from external reviewers is considered valuable. Clearer reasons for, and use of, program review are needed.

8. Plans for the Future Proposed revisions to program review guidelines:  Request submission of self-study draft to Director of Assessment.  Include Director of Assessment facilitated focus group and IR conducted Student Experience Survey in assessment options.  Facilitate process of departments/programs obtaining needed data from IR.  Recognize faculty involvement as service to department and/or campus.

9. Procedures for General Education Assessment Review of syllabi for courses being considered for General Education. Three-year assessment cycle of General Education categories. Assessment activities:  Description of course embedded assessments of General Education learning objectives,  Student Perceptions Survey,  Report student performance on learning objectives.

10. Review of Syllabi Syllabus must state ways the course fulfills the specific learning objectives for the General Education category or categories, and The learning objectives themselves must be listed or integrated with course learning objectives.

11. Course Embedded Assessment Faculty identify assessments that address each General Education learning objective for the appropriate category. Faculty submit examples of assessment items used. Faculty report numbers of students Exceeding, Meeting, Approaching, and Not Meeting each learning objective.

12. Student Perceptions Survey Part One: To what extent has this course …  emphasized active learning?  included multiple perspectives?  promoted critical thinking? Part Two: To what extent have you mastered each of the General Education category learning objectives? Part Three: Why are you taking this course? (check all options that apply)

13. Feedback from Faculty on General Education Assessment Process Approved by campus IRB. Faculty teaching General Education courses assessed during the past year were sent email invitations to be interviewed. Those who volunteered and were available during June 6 th -14 th participated (convenience sample!) Seven faculty from four General Education categories participated.

14. Questions Asked: Question: How did you come to teach this General Education course? Follow-up: Did you create it, begin teaching an existing course, etc? Question: How do you test students in this course? Follow-up: Papers? Multiple Choice exams? Question: What do you think are the goals of the General Education assessment process on this campus?

15. Response Trends: Comments made by at least four participants. Almost all were previously existing courses that became Gen Ed courses; no change in curriculum; good fit with Learning Outcomes. Most courses included multiple types of tests: multiple choice, short answer, and essay. Almost all stated personal feelings of the importance of a well-rounded education. Most stated need for campus support: sell the value to students, more TAs, smaller class sizes (in order to do more discussion and writing).

16. Plans for the Future Use of SUNY rubrics for Critical Thinking and Basic Communication. Training of faculty in the use of rubrics to be done by the Center for Excellence in Teaching & Learning (CETL). Measures of quality (reliability) for assessments used in General Education courses will be performed by the General Education Assessment subcommittee and faculty teaching the courses.

17. Dual Enrollment Program – University in the High School (UHS) Course guidelines, syllabi, exams, materials and General Education Learning Objectives are sent to the high school. High school sends course proposal to the UHS Program office. The appropriate department, the Dean, and the Provost determine whether the curriculum meets University at Albany standards and the teacher is academically qualified to teach the course for University credit.

18. Some Current UHS Courses Intermediate French (#221 and 222), Intermediate Spanish (#103 and 104), Intermediate Italian (#103 and 104), Calculus I and II (Math 101, 111, 112, 113), Literature (English 121, 122, 222), Science Research Project - Intermediate and Advanced Research and Methods (CAS 109, 110, 209, 210).

19. Plans for the Future Revisit UHS assessment of student learning for comparability with university courses –  ACTFL is conducting a nationwide survey of foreign language assessments used and needed, results due out November, 2006.  Considering both commercially available and locally developed language tests.

20. Questions: How do you do assessment?  Department level  Reliability and validity of measures  Pay faculty extra service?  Documentation of use of data – curricular or other changes