1. FACULTY RETREAT MAY 22, 2012

2. H ISTORY 2006 Middle States Self-Study Reviewer’s Report Recommendations: The institution is advised that General Education outcomes need to be “mapped” and connected to specific learning opportunities. The team notes these examples of lack of “mapping”: 1. We concur with the self-study report that the University should define what “proficient” means for General Education. 2. General Education Curriculum It is unclear in the General Education curriculum how students are developing skill in oral communication; Oral communication and quantitative reasoning are not included in the Honors “core curriculum.”

3. R ECOMMENDATIONS C ONTINUED 3. It does not appear that the Technology Fluency Policy adheres to MSCHE guidelines for Information Literacy (SU Academic Program Reviews 2001- 2006). 4. The 2000 SU General Education learning outcomes include outcomes related to the SU strategic emphasis on diversity and globalization. However, the SU Self-Study 2006 (p. 71) reports that only 18% of existing General Education courses purport to address this learning outcome. The majority of students graduate without experiencing courses with these learning emphases. 5. Substantial differences in General Education between transfer and “native” SU students need to be critically examined to ensure that the SU degree is comparable for all students (SU Self-Study 2006, p. 95).

4. H ISTORY  2006-2009- Course-based assessment of critical thinking, writing, and information literacy  Fall 2007-UAAC made a permanent Faculty Senate committee  Summer2009 –Alignment of Student Learning Goals with the Gen. Ed. Curriculum & outcomes (Recs. 1, 2, & 4)  Winter 2010 - Faculty Development Day  Spring 2010 -Faculty Senate approval and recommendation to develop an ad hoc Gen. Ed. assessment sub-committee

5. H ISTORY  Summer 2010-Fall 2010- The Gen. Ed. Assessment Council (GEAC) is created and develops an assessment plan and timeline (Rec. 5)  Fall 2010 - Faculty Senate approves a course-embedded General Education assessment pilot  Spring 2011 -Command of Language and Quantitative Literacy subcommittees formed and developed assessments (Rec. 5)  Fall 2011-Spring 2012 -Data collected (Recs. 1 & 5)

6. P ERIODIC R EVIEW R EPORT Submitted June 2011 1. We concur with the self-study report that the University should define what “proficient” means for General Education. 2. General Education Curriculum  It is unclear in the General Education curriculum how students are developing skill in oral communication;  Oral communication and quantitative reasoning are not included in the Honors “core curriculum.” 3. It does not appear that the Technology Fluency Policy adheres to MSCHE guidelines for Information Literacy (SU Academic Program Reviews 2001-2006). 4. The 2000 SU General Education learning outcomes include outcomes related to the SU strategic emphasis on diversity and globalization. However, the SU Self- Study 2006 (p. 71) reports that only 18% of existing General Education courses purport to address this learning outcome. The majority of students graduate without experiencing courses with these learning emphases. 5. Substantial differences in General Education between transfer and “native” SU students need to be critically examined to ensure that the SU degree is comparable for all students (SU Self-Study 2006, p. 95). MSCHE Reviewers: As a result of these efforts, the first four specific components of the visiting team ’ s recommendation have been addressed. The reviewers commend the University for addressing these aspects of the recommendation thoroughly and effectively.

7. P ERIODIC R EVIEW R EPORT Follow-up report due April 2013 to address the following recommendations:  Develop programmatic assessment activities for student support service programs, perform meaningful assessment and analysis based on these activities, and use the results to guide program improvement.  Develop meaningful assessment processes that use analysis of data to demonstrate whether learning outcomes are being achieved and to drive program improvement in all academic programs.  Develop and implement detailed plans for institutional assessment and demonstrate that assessment is being used for programmatic and institutional effectiveness. In a follow-up letter to Middle States, SU shared data collected and used on several student services programs (e.g., freshmen seminars, LLCs, and supplemental instruction)

8. T ODAY  Discuss the assessment methodology  How do we define proficiency and what outcomes should be our priorities?  What strategies can we use to improve student engagement and learning?  What are meaningful ways that we can use these results to improve the Gen. Ed. program?

9. FALL 2011 GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS

10. R EADING & W RITING A SSESSMENT

12. S AMPLE  932 students submitted their writing assignments (43% of the UG enrolled students)  199 included in the sample SU NativeSU Transfer PopulationSamplePopulationSample Minority20%17%22%12% Female60%74%49%63% N4938102267797

13. S AMPLE

14. RELIABILITY

15. 70% M ET OR E XCEEDED :  Synthesize and apply information and ideas in discipline-specific forms of writing (92%)  Engage in active reading strategies to interpret and summarize content of written works (89%)  Solve a problem by analyzing the question being asked and identifying the relevant information (86%)  Use appropriate organizational patterns (82%) and styles (84%) for specific writing tasks  Use appropriate evidence for specific writing tasks (73%)

16. R ESULTS More than 60% of SU students sampled met or exceeded expectations for the following outcome:  Select, evaluate, and cite reputable and appropriate sources (66%) More than 50% of SU students sampled met or exceeded expectations for the following outcome:  Construct thesis-driven arguments that marshal appropriate evidence (58%) 

17. R ESULTS Less than 15% of SU students sampled met or exceeded expectations for the following outcome:  Construct thesis-driven arguments that marshal appropriate counter-arguments (13%)

18. R ESULTS  No statistically significant differences between SU native and transfer students  No significant differences in performance based on academic rank

19. S UMMARY & D ISCUSSION Future Assessments:  Did the data accurately measure students’ reading and writing ability?  How can results be used to improve the assessment process, student learning, and/or teaching?  What proficiency level should we expect for SU students? Which outcomes should be a priority?

20. Q UANTITATIVE L ITERACY

21. A SSIGNMENTS

22. S AMPLE  629 students (8% of UG enrolled students) SU NativeSU Transfer PopulationSamplePopulationSample Minority20% 22%21% Female60%61%49%59% N49384122677217

23. GPA C OMPARISON

24. R ELIABILITY

25. V ALIDITY

26. R ESULTS

27. SU N ATIVE VS. T RANSFERS

28. S UMMARY How well did the assessment method work?  Did the data accurately measure students’ quantitative ability?  How can results be used to improve the assessment process, student learning, and/or teaching?  What proficiency level should we expect for SU students? Which outcomes should be a priority?

29. 11:45-12:45 HOW CAN THE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY BE IMPROVED?

30. 12:45-2:00 HOW DO WE DEFINE PROFICIENCY AND IDENTIFY OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE OUTCOMES ASSESSED THIS ACADEMIC YEAR? WHAT STRATEGIES CAN WE USE TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS OUTCOME? HOW CAN WE GET STUDENTS MORE ENGAGED IN THE CLASSROOM AND IMPROVE THEIR LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT? FOR OUR PRIORITIZED OUTCOMES, WHAT ARE SOME MEANINGFUL WAYS WE CAN USE THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE SU’S GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM.