1. Assessment of Curriculum Outcomes Dale Whittaker Associate Dean and Director of Academic Programs Purdue University May 21, 2008

2. The Purdue Experience Motivation: ◦Program and Outcome Relevance ◦Continuous Program Improvement ◦Efficacy and Efficiency of Curriculum Compliance: ◦University-wide Higher Learning Commission Accreditation 2010 ◦Individual Program Accreditations (e.g. ABET, SAF, IFT) ◦5 year CSREES program reviews

3. Three-step Process Identify Learning Outcomes and Activities Assess Student Learning Outcomes Improve Student Learning

4. Step 1: Identify Learning Outcomes and Activities Outcomes ◦What knowledge, skills and beliefs do we want the students to attain as a result of this program? ◦Artifact: College and Program list of outcomes Activities ◦In what activities are students involved to help achieve this learning outcome? ◦Artifact: Matrix mapping activities to outcomes

5. College Outcomes

6. Program Outcome Matrix

7. Matrix – How Program Activities Address College Outcomes

8. Step 2: Assess Student Learning Presentation by Christian Reiner (Center for Instructional Excellence) September 7, 2007

9. I taught Stripe how to whistle. I don’t hear him whistling. I said I taught him. I didn’t say he learned it. It is assessment [that] helps us distinguish between teaching and learning. (Leveque, 1999-2000)

10. Definition “a set of processes designed to improve, demonstrate, and inquire about student learning.” (Mentkowski, M. qtd. in Palomba & Banta, 1999)

11. Key Questions What are you willing to accept as evidence/indicator that students have achieved the learning outcome? To what degree have students achieved the outcome? What facilitates/hinders students’ achievement of the learning outcome?

12. HOW to Assess Assessment Audit Methods ◦direct vs. indirect ◦single vs. multiple (triangulation) ◦standardized vs. self-developed

13. Assessment Audit Purpose: ◦Determine already existing assessment efforts related to learning outcomes Advantages: ◦Saves time and other resources ◦Validates what faculty do ◦Shows that assessment is nothing new

14. Reporting Tool Learning Outcome CourseMeasuresResultsUse of Information COA 4: Communication AG 299Students write a final paper (5-10 pages) reviewing literature on a given topic. They hand in a 1 st draft for feedback. The final paper is graded using a rubric and mastery is determined in 4 levels (beginning, developing, proficient, mastery). Criteria for the rubric are organization, mechanics, content knowledge, and analysis). Students overall average performance is 2.14 (2.00 equals developing level). Their highest average performance was for content knowledge (2.44) and their lowest average was for analysis (1.87). Based on the results, I focused more on helping students improve their analysis skills. Adapted from Walvoord, 2004

15. References: Walvoord, B. E. (2004). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments, and general education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

16. Criteria Audience Accuracy Rubric is taken/adapted from: ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2000-2007). Rubistar. Retrieved November 14, 2007 from http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=CustomizeTemplate&bank_rubric_id=127&section_id=5&.

17. Levels of Achievement Criteria Above Standards Meets Standards Approaches Standards Below Standards Audience Accuracy Rubric is taken/adapted from: ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2000-2007). Rubistar. Retrieved November 14, 2007 from http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=CustomizeTemplate&bank_rubric_id=127&section_id=5&. Levels of Achievement Criteria ExcellentGoodAcceptableFailing Audience Accuracy

18. Checklist for Midterm Paper YesNo The paper is typed (not handwritten). The manuscript is stapled. The paper is at least 15 pages long. The margins are 1 inch wide. The text is left-aligned. The text is double-spaced.

19. Rubric is taken/adapted from: ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2000-2007). Rubistar. Retrieved November 14, 2007 from http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=CustomizeTemplate&bank_rubric_id=127&section_id=5&. Levels of Achievement CriteriaAbove StandardsMeets StandardsApproaches Standards Below Standards Audience 7 points5 points3 points1 point Accuracy 4 points3 points2 points1 point

20. Levels of Achievement CriteriaAbove StandardsMeets StandardsApproaches StandardsBelow Standards Audience7 points5 points3 points1 point Demonstrates a clear understanding of the potential reader and uses appropriate vocabulary and arguments. Anticipates reader's questions and provides thorough answers appropriate for that audience. Demonstrates a general understanding of the potential reader and uses vocabulary and arguments appropriate for that audience. Demonstrates some understanding of the potential reader and uses arguments appropriate for that audience. It is not clear who the author is writing for. Accuracy4 points3 points2 points1 point All supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately. Almost all supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately. Most supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately. Most supportive facts and statistics were inaccurately reported. Rubric is taken/adapted from: ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2000-2007). Rubistar. Retrieved November 14, 2007 from http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=CustomizeTemplate&bank_rubric_id=127&section_id=5&.

21. Levels of Achievement Criteria Above Standards Meets Standards Approaches Standards Below Standards Audience 7 points5 points3 points1 point Demonstrates a clear understanding of the potential reader and uses appropriate vocabulary and arguments. Anticipates reader's questions and provides thorough answers appropriate for that audience. Demonstrates a general understanding of the potential reader and uses vocabulary and arguments appropriate for that audience. Demonstrates some understanding of the potential reader and uses arguments appropriate for that audience. It is not clear who the author is writing for. Accuracy 4 points3 points2 points1 point All supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately. Almost all supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately. Most supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately. Most supportive facts and statistics were inaccurately reported. Rubric is taken/adapted from: ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2000-2007). Rubistar. Retrieved November 14, 2007 from http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=CustomizeTemplate&bank_rubric_id=127&section_id=5&.

22. How Can Rubrics Facilitate Learning? Reveal standards Foster self-assessment Encourage ownership ◦ Students help develop standards ◦ Students help describe criteria Invite communication Provide different Insights Huba, M. F., and Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

23. Tips for Using Rubrics Explain well Use for Assessment Refer to often Encourage Self-Assessment Facilitate reliable use Huba, M. F., and Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

24. References: ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2000-2007). Rubistar. Retrieved November 14, 2007 from http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=CustomizeTemplate&bank_rubric_id=127&section _id=5&. Huba, M. F., and Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

25. Purdue Experience 2007-08 – Assess Communications (Outcome 4) Developed and adopted college-wide rubric Reporting through Step 2

26. 2008-09 Academic Year 2008-09 – Report on findings (Step 3) early fall Expect course and curriculum modifications based on assessment evidence Implement change and continue assessment Assess College Outcome – Critical Thinking

27. University Wide Website – Spr 08

28. Thank you! dwhittak@purdue.edu http://sharepoint.agriculture.purdue.edu/oap/outcomes