11. Learning within GE Programs at SSU

The main purpose of this section is to address the question of how we can establish more explicit processes for learning about student learning within the GE programs. As in the case of Majors (section I), we have first identified a view of assessment that is consistent with the mission and goals of Sonoma State University, and then we have constructed a profile of leaming and assessment practices in the existing GE programs. Based on these findings, we have organized a series of recommendations on how to adjust from the present practices to the objective that we need to reach.

The notion of "assessment" has become an important ingredient of the new rhetoric in the educational sector. For the purpose of WASC reaccreditation we have focused on a process where by faculty members who teach GE courses can learn how their students are leaming. So defined, it is a structured reflection that begins with an explicit specification of student learning goals. This is followed by effective communication of these learning goals to students, and a design of curriculum and pedagogy to assist students in achieving those learning goals. Subsequently, GE teachers ascertain--perhaps at the student's senior level-how much and which of the leaming goals students have achieved. These findings will be used by GE teachers to adjust curriculum content, pedagogy, and even their learning goals, if they find that these adjustments will support student learning.

Assessment so defined is functionally different from testing and grading of student's work. Testing and grading is for the benefit of students--a certification for other colleges or employers that students have met some educational standards. Assessing of student leaming is for the direct benefit of teachers--determining how much of the learning goals have been achieved by students, and in what ways curriculum, pedagogy, communication, and even goals need to be adjusted if deemed necessary. Ultimately, assessing student learning is for the benefit of students. Continuous and conscious efforts of teachers translate into a delivery of education more adapted to students needs. In addition we can envision assessment instruments where students are directly involved.

This is a formidable task for various reasons. Systematic assessment of student learning of GE programs is a somewhat uncharted area in college education. Assessment at the program level will require institutional changes and additional resources at a time when resources for higher education have been curtailed.

Methodology--The descriptions, analysis and recommendations of this section are based on three major sources: the report of the Task Force on Learning in the GE; responses from the faculty, staff, and administrators to that report; and an empirical research study conducted at the request of members of the SSU Academic Senate. The data for this research was generated with an objective questionnaire sent to all GE instructors and two focus groups with GE instructors.

The objective questionnaire was sent to 346 faculty members teaching GE courses during the Fall 1998 semester. The response rate was relatively high: 210 teachers (60%) returned the questionnaire, suggesting that their answers are representative of GE practices at SSU. The office of Assessment and Analytical Studies processed the questionnaires. Professor Carlos Benito analyzed the data.

In addition, all GE teachers were invited to participate in focus groups, and 56 expressed a desire to participate. Two dates, each on a different weekday, were offered for focus groups and 27 teachers indicated that they would attend. Had there been more offerings, more teachers would likely have registered. Of those registered, 22 participated, eleven on each date. The focus groups were lead by Professor David Van Nuys, Chair of the Psychology Department at SSU. Members of the WASC Steering committee attended as non-participating observers.

Conversations within the focus groups cannot be considered representative of the whole faculty; however, they elicited important issues and provided information that complemented the objective questionnaire. More importantly, we learned that focus groups can be a valuable asset in the construction of an assessment process.

Following the tradition of liberal education, Sonoma State University has, gradually developed a strong and comprehensive GE system that balances the tensions of multiple learning goals, student needs, teachers' expertise, and institutional requirements.

At the lower division level there are two GE programs: one based on the disciplines, taught by instructors from various departments, and another based on an interdisciplinary concept, taught by instructors in the Hutchins School of Liberal Studies. Recently, and as an experiment, the Academic Senate has authorized a student individualized program within the disciplinary program.

At the upper division level, within the disciplinary program, the Academic Senate has authorized an Integrated-Upper Division program whose aim is to offer three existing or new courses integrated by a common theme. The offering of these multidisciplinary (rather than interdisciplinary) packages depends on the initiative of faculty members.

The Disciplinary Lower Division GE Program--This program offers students a set of university-approved course options distributed among areas of learning. These areas of learning and their goals are as follows:

• Communication and Critical Thinking (Area A) is designed to provide students with the level of writing, analytical and speaking proficiency appropriate for a university education.
• Natural Sciences and Mathematics (Area B) is designed to examine the theories, methods and models by which scientific investigation proceeds and to imbue students with the same sense of curiosity and wonder about the natural world that inspires mathematicians and scientists in their work.
• Arts and Humanities (AreaC) is designed to cultivate and develop imagination, sensibility, sensitivity and interpretative skills and to develop understanding of the interrelationships among the creative arts, the humanities, and the self.
• Social Sciences (Area D) is designed to describe and explain organization, variation, and change in social practices and institutions.
• The Integrated Person (Area E) is designed to study both the processes affecting individuals, such as psychological, sexual , or physiological changes throughout the human life cycle, and the interactions between the individual and society.

Hutchins Interdisciplinary Lower Division GE--The lower division GE program consists of a series of four 12-unit courses. These courses are broken into sections, and each section of students remains together as a seminar group for a semester. All sections of each GE course share a common syllabus. The Hutchins program is designed to be highly collaborative between faculty and students and among students themselves. Since each course is taught by a cadre of instructors from different disciplines, the Hutchins GE program depends on a high degree of collaboration among faculty as well.

The heart of the Hutchins GE program lies in addressing the curriculum by way of seminar interaction. This requires a significant level of student preparation, participation and a willingness to engage in what is often intense learning in an arena that continually calls upon (while it simultaneously develops) communication and critical thinking skills. The seminar mode can be stimulating for faculty students, but given the low faculty/student ratio this is quite labor intensive.

Each course has a correspondence with portions of traditional GE program. Their designations are intended only for the purpose of comparison. The Hutchins' four courses meet, with the exception of mathematics that must be taken separately, the campus lower division GE requirements. To ensure that developments in the disciplinary GE program reflect in the Hutchins program, Hutchins faculty participates in the university's GE Subcommittee.

Learning Goals in the Lower Division GE Programs and Courses--As it has been practiced in most colleges and universities the GE programs at SSU were not developed around the notion of student learning goals. The design of the GE programs, however, evolved in response to philosophies about general education, one based on the notion of disciplinary learning, and another on interdisciplinary learning. Each of these programs implied learning objectives. Most recently, the Hutchins interdisciplinary GE has introduced learning goals and systematic assessment of the learning achievements of its students. Conversely, a growing number of teachers in the disciplinary GE program are beginning to work with student learning goals.

By design, to achieve breadth the disciplinary lower division GE program exposes students to a broader range of subject matter than they would find in their majors. The classification of GE courses by areas, combined with a variety of GE teachers' pedagogy at the course level, reveals a spectrum of learning objectives.

Delivery of disciplinary and professional knowledge is the main focus of 48% of the GE courses, followed by delivery of foundational skills (26%), a basis for lifelong learning (10%), reflecting on values or aesthetic appreciation (7%), infusing social values (5%), and providing a sense of the past and of world civilizations (4%). Focus on delivery of disciplinary knowledge is the most current practice in area B (Natural Sciences and Mathematics) and area D (Social Sciences). Focus on foundational skills such as reading, writing, speaking, and critical thinking are most important in area A (Communication and Critical Thinking). Providing a basis for lifelong learning (100%) is the focus of area E (Integrated Person). GE courses taught in area C (Arts and Humanities) cover a wider range of learning goals such as foundational skills ( 30%), reflection on values and aesthetic appreciation (20%), infusing social purpose (22%), providing a sense of the human past and world civilizations (17%), and providing a basis for lifelong learning (9%).

The emphasis on disciplinary content in the disciplinary GE actually is greater than the indicated 48%. The teaching of foundational skills, for example, is largely done by specific departments, such as the teaching of critical thinking by the Philosophy Department (Area A), or the teaching of reading and writing skills by the English Department (Area A) and so forth. Conversations in the focus groups revealed that those teachers from other GE

areas, for example Social Sciences (Area D) also expose students to reading, writing, and mathematical skills. Even more, they think that the vocabulary and conceptual frameworks of their disciplines expose students to critical thinking and development of their cognitive states.

The interdisciplinary GE program of the Hutchins School, on the other hand, focuses on connecting knowledge from various disciplines. In practice 100% of their GE courses focus on foundational skills such us critical thinking, reading and communication.

Communicating to Students the Learning Goals of GE Programs and Courses--At the course level, GE teachers use a variety of means to communicate the objectives or learning goals of their courses. Communication of the objectives and values of the disciplinary GE programs-- lower and upper divisions--is less systematic.

The most important instrument used by teacher s in their respective GE courses is the class syllabus--56% of teachers consider the syllabus their primary communication instrument. The second most important means is verbal communication during classes. The syllabus is particularly important for teachers in Arts and Humanities (Area C) and Social Sciences (Area D), while verbal communication is especially important in the Integrated Person (Area E) and the Hutchins GE Program. The observed variability seems to reflect differences in disciplinary knowledge and pedagogy. The focus groups revealed that verbal communication is important across all areas-- some teachers build their assignments around learning goals.

Focus groups with students elicited the information that some of them do not understand or do not appreciate the purpose of GE programs. Some students think that GE is just a requirement that they need to satisfy to complete their majors. This misconception is sometimes reinforced by teachers who advise their students "to get through" with their GE requirements and to focus on their major work. This perception of GE is more widespread among transfer and re-entry students than among traditional freshmen. Most traditional freshmen are now first exposed to the GE sequence through the Educational Team Program (EMT). This exposure, however, seems to be more focused on information about the areas of the Disciplinary GE than on an appreciation of the learning goals and values of a general education. This perception is not exclusively that of SSU students, but is an opinion held by many students in many colleges across the nation.

Assistant professors (35%) and part-time instructors (18%) now teach the majority of GE courses at SSU. As the focus groups with GE teachers revealed, this is not necessarily a problem from the perspective of teaching effectiveness. Indeed, the average GE class size of these assistant professors and part-time instructors is 37 students, smaller than the average class size for GE as a whole, which is 49 students. The difficulty lies in the fact that many of these teachers did not participate in the establishment of SSU's GE programs, nor have they been fully informed about the structure and goals of GE. The average experience of assistant professors and instructors teaching GE course s is five years, as opposed to the 17-25 years of associate and full professors. There are, however, some assistant professors and instructors with longer experience--five years is an average with a variation coefficient above 100%. On the other hand, this means that there exist recently hired assistant professors and instructors who are teaching GE courses. The instructors who participated in the focus groups recognized the need of learning more about GE programs as a way to enhance their teaching effectiveness.

The focus groups elicited some information about teacher's success in communicating their learning goals to students. It is easy for students to learn about the contribution of a particular course to the learning of a discipline content or the skills of a profession. It is more difficult for them to understand the meta-goals of a course such as acquiring analytical skills, having a sense of the past and world civilizations, developing their cognitive. stages, becoming active citizens and so forth. There are many reasons for this difficulty, an important one that students themselves are in a developmental process that requires time and which often comes to fruition after they leave college.

Student advising is a tool for communicating the learning goals of GE as a program. More than half of GE teachers, however, do not provide GE advising, some of them (9%) because their schools or departments have special GE advisors. Just 23% of GE teachers provide GE advising and remain current on changes in GE. Only in Area E, Integrated Person, and the Hutchins School of Liberal Studies do the majority of teachers provide GE advising and keep abreast of changes in the program. With the exception of those teachers who participate in the Educational Mentoring Team (EMT) program, faculty members have no mechanism to keep apprised of GE program. requirements, except reading the catalog and schedule. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the disciplinary GE program is both complex and constantly changing. Finally, as a recent Academic Senate retreat emphasized, the faculty membership itself is undergoing significant turnover; many of the founding professors are retiring or about to retire. This means, among other things, that the most experienced advisors are leaving or will be leaving SSU. The need for developing and maintaining a strong corps of GE advisors is significant.

Teaching GE Courses--Most students who registered in GE courses (76%) did it for the purpose of satisfying their GE requirements. This was particular true in the courses taught in Communication and Critical Thinking (Area A) and the Integrated Person (Area E).

The most common way of teaching GE courses is a combination of traditional lecturing with some forms of active leaming such as cooperative groups, dialogues in the class, question and answers, student presentations, and so forth (54%). The second most important way is traditional lecturing (14%). Seminar style is the way of teaching in the Hutchins (100%). This variability reflects different disciplinary content, pedagogy and class size. The seminar style of the interdisciplinary GE is made possible by their small class size (13 students per class).

At SSU GE teachers support student learning through a variety of means from the use of web pages (36% utilize the web), to student tutors (36%), computer tutorials (23%) and field trips (14%), among others. The use of the web and student tutors is particularly important for the Hutchins School. Computer tutorials are widely used (by 61 % of teachers) in the Natural Sciences and Mathematics (Area B).

The function of web pages varies widely across GE areas. For SSU as a whole the most important function of the web is to publish syllabi. Within the Natural Sciences and Mathematics the web is used to publish syllabi (by 45% of teachers) and to organize student learning (29%). Within the Social Sciences (Area D) the web is used as a means to support research projects (by 13% of teachers) and as a means to publish syllabi (by 11% of teachers). In the Hutchins School, teachers (100%) utilize the web to communicate with their students.

Most teachers (56%) prepare their GE courses focusing on disciplinary content, e.g., chemistry or history. Adaptation of course materials to meet GE students' needs is more concerted in the Integrated Person (Area E) and Communication and Critical Thinking (Area A). The focus groups revealed that in the Natural Sciences and Mathematics, although 67% of teachers focus on content, most of their GE courses are specially designed for GE students; their majors follow different tracks.

Assessment of Student Learning in GE Courses and Program--The perspective "assessment of student learning" has not been a dominant paradigm within SSU GE programs. Only the interdisciplinary GE program has recently introduced it as an explicit component of teaching and learning.

At the course level, GE teachers provide students with a variety of ways to demonstrate learning. In most instances teachers use more than one way. For the two GE programs as a whole, the two most important ways are papers (used by 48% of teachers) and essays (44%), followed by homework (30%) and multiple choice exams (29%). The Hutchins Program relies on papers (used by 100% of teachers) and portfolios (100%). The

focus groups revealed that the use of multiple choice exams is largely a direct function of class size. If SSU could finance more readers, or smaller classes, some teachers that now use multiple choice exams indicate they would use other means, such as essays.

A teacher learning about student learning--the crux of assessment--is still a rarity in GE courses. Almost half of the GE teachers (49%) use grading of exams as an indicator of student learning. Simultaneously they use conversation (in class or outside classes) with students (44%) as a complementary way to get a sense of what students learn, both in terms of content and cognitive abilities. Some teachers from the disciplinary GE program attending the focus groups openly expressed the view that they do not assess student learning in a systematic way. That is, they don't work with a list of assessable learning outcomes. They acknowledged that definition and assessment of learning outcomes are new concepts that they will need to learn by doing, since this is an uncharted area. This will be particularly so for assessing the learning goals of the disciplinary GE program as a whole. In the Hutchins interdisciplinary GE, on the other hand, 100% of teachers use portfolios for assessing a priori defined learning outcomes for the program.

A growing number of teachers are beginning to experiment with assessment of student learning at the course level. They are experimenting with explicit learning goals for the course as a whole, for each study unit, and for assignments. They grade students using objective criteria based on rubrics. They make a distinction between testing/grading and assessment of student learning, reserving testing/grading for the benefit of students and utilizing assessment for improving teachers' effectiveness.

It should be stressed that most teachers acknowledge the possibility of assessing student learning within majors and at the program level. Difficulties arise, however, relative to organization and elicitation of assessment of the disciplinary GE program. During the focus groups some teachers suggested that a practical way to assess student learning within the disciplinary GE program would be to assess by areas (A through E). Discussion in the focus groups reveals that GE teachers don't share a common understanding about the assessability of student leaming. Some teachers hold that some of the learning goals of GE are not assessable while other feel more comfortable with the possibility. Part of the disagreement seems to arise from the assumption that assessment will require measurement of student learning achievements, and even more, quantitative measurements. Measurement, as other teachers stated it, is not a requirement for assessment, although it can be a means in some disciplines and for some specific learning goals.

Regarding the purpose and worth of assessment of student learning within GE there also exists a wide distribution of views. Some teachers, who participated in the establishment of the GE program or in its administration through the GE Subcommittee, acknowledge the potential value of working with learning goals and assessing student learning--some even use these notions in their courses. They hold, however, well articulated views about the best process to establish assessment in GE. Firstly, they think that assessment should be conducted by faculty members teaching GE courses and for the sole purpose of enhancing education delivery, as opposed to using assessment for evaluating the perfon-nance of themselves and their colleagues. Secondly, they think that the assessment processes have to be consistent with the disciplinary philosophy of the program, as opposed to using assessment institutions to change the nature of the disciplinary GE Program.

Given the wide range of students' abilities at SSU, some teachers indicated that assessment would have to be based on a "value added" concept. That is, students enter SSU with different degrees of preparation, and it cannot be expected that all them will leave with the same level of knowledge.

GE Assessment in Other Colleges--Most CSU campuses are examining the goals and outcomes of their instructional programs within majors and within GE. With respect to the GE program, the newer CSU campuses, Monterey Bay and San Marcos,

have taken the lead in developing an outcomes-assessment program. San Bernardino, a well- established campus, has a long experience with assessment. Other well-established campuses (e.g., Chico, Fullerton and Northridge) are at different stages of program development and experimentation.

Since SSU has more complex and experimental GE programs than most CSU campuses, a more useful source of information is comparison with publicly funded small colleges from other states. For this purpose, members of the GE Task Force investigated the innovations in GE education assessment adopted by Truman State University (TSU-formerly Northeastern Missouri State) and Kings College. The course structure of the GE program at TSU resembles very closely SSU's GE program.

TSU began developing its current information-driven assessment program in 1972. TSU has adopted a "value-added" approach. That is, TSU evaluates students' performance at stages: when entering as freshmen and after completion of courses. To this end, TSU utilizes a mix of standardized tests, writing samples, institutional surveys, and interviews to estimate changes in students' knowledge.

TSU assessment instruments--e.g., testing methods--require extensive institutional "buy- in" from faculty and staff. Some SSU faculty members, however, have reservations about the usefulness of competence tests as a guide for curriculum development. The test results, it is argued, will dictate key decisions related to curriculum planning, instructional strategy, allocation of resources, and, perhaps, the evaluation of faculty performance. SSU faculty members, on the other hand, who work in professionally oriented programs tend to have a more receptive attitude toward such instruments.

Kings College's practices are based on clearly defined faculty expectations for student learning outcomes and explicit criteria that both faculty and students can use to evaluate their progress. Kings College beganits innovation with a few, manageable courses and ultimately it grew to include all of the core courses in the GE program and with strong linkages to the major program. This Kings College approach provides the SSU

campus community with an engaging yet realistic strategy to continuing building its lower division GE program.

The challenge for SSU faculty is to identify a gradual and experimental process for establishing assessment of student learning within the disciplinary GE program. This is the largest GE program, where 92% of students fulfill their GE requirements. The Hutchins interdisciplinary GE program has already established an explicit process for assessing student learning.

The following recommendations acknowledge the reality described above and builds on the proposals of the WASC GE Task Force and the responses of teachers with experience and long- standing conunitment to the GE program. These are recommendations for the GE and EPC committees of the Academic Senate and for the Provost.

Organiztion of a GE Faculty Lab- -introducing assessment of student learning within the disciplinary GE will need to be exploratory and experimental--a learning by doing process. This is why it is proposed to do it through a GE Faculty Lab. This lab will be a forum for engaging GE teachers in discussions about the assessment of student learning. The concrete expression of the lab could be focus groups, faculty retreats, dialogues, and the like. Participants in the focus groups conducted for the purpose of this self-study found that the dialogue with other colleagues was very productive. Some of them suggested the convenience of continuing with this kind of structured conversations as a way to establish assessment.

It is recommended that the convening authority of the GE Faculty Lab be the GE Subcommittee of EPC (Education Policy Committee) with the logistic and technical support of Academic Affairs. Departments would designate faculty members teaching GE courses to work within the Faculty GE Lab. While it is envisioned that departments and faculty will

participate on a voluntary basis, the hope is that the GE Faculty Lab would include rotating teams of faculty and staff that represent participating departments.

The GE Subcommittee will convene the GE Faculty Lab for at least three major activities:

• specification of the learning goals of the disciplinary GE program;
• identification of instruments for assessing student learning;
• preparation of a report for each GE area for dissemination to EPC and Academic Affairs.

The final purpose of these activities will be to generate information that will be provided to all GE teachers and departments to enhance their ability to support student learning in the general education program.

For the specification of learning goals the following procedure is recommended. In a first stage, each department or program with GE courses will prepare and present to the GE Lab a list of assessable learning goals for these courses. In a second stage, GE teachers in the same area (A through E) will organize the information submitted by departments and will identify assessable learning goals for their area. In a third stage, if it is determined to be necessary and achievable, the members of the GE Faculty Lab will identify assessable learning goals for the disciplinary GE program as a whole. That is, the learning goals for the disciplinary GE program will be derived from a bottom-up approach. The qualification of "assessable" for learning goals is not necessarily equivalent to the qualification "measurable." Measuring learning outcomes may be possible in some cases, but it is not envisioned as a necessary condition for assessing the results of a GE education.

It is recommended that for the identification of assessing instruments the GE Faculty Lab will organize focus groups, retreats, or other structured forms of communication between GE teachers. One possibility is to convene these gatherings by the GE areas A through E. Academic Affairs will support the working groups with information about instruments used in other colleges, as well with the analysis of instruments, such as

WEPT and SAT exams, or others that the GE Labmay request. The envisioned range of possible assessment instruments is wide, including informal communication among GE teachers through focus groups, focus groups with students at their senior level, student surveys, and more technical instruments, such as tests. Whatever the choices, it is recommended that GE teachers themselves conduct the process to insure that the generated information assists them to better support student learning in GE.

It is recommended that the GE Faculty Lab submit for the approval of EPC of the Academic Senate a set of guidelines on how to prepare the GE area review.

It is recommended that a tenured faculty member teaching GE courses chair the GE Faculty Lab. The appointment will be for one year, and this faculty member will receive one course (3 units) release time each semester. The appointed faculty member will be selected among teachers in the GE area that will prepare the GE area review for EPC. The chair of the Lab, therefore, will rotate according to GE areas. Utilizing this method, each area will present a GE area review every five years.

It is recommended that the budget of Academic Affairs be expanded to include resources for the chair of the GE Faculty Lab, for clerical support, organization of focus groups, retreats, surveys, and the dissemination of information that assessment will require. It is a view of the large majority of faculty members that this new activity should not be funded by reducing the budget for teaching positions.

GE Advising--Once developed the GE program learning goals need to be communicated and emphasized to the widest extent possible. It is important that teachers, administrators, and staff members communicate to students the value of a general education--understanding better themselves and others, becoming more active citizens, and finding rewarding careers or engaging in enterprising activities. To meet these goals, it is necessary to improve the level and quality of GE advising through targeted and frequent orientations.

It is recommended that the faculty member representing each school in the GE Subconu- nittee be the primary link to assist the faculty advisors of their respective schools and departments. Through this mechanism, each department will be kept abreast of the new developments and changing requirements that characterize the GE program.

It is recommended that Academic Affairs, in consultation with the GE Subcomrnittee, be charged with creating and maintaining a website to inform students about the GE alternatives, the learning goals of each GE program, and the curriculum and pedagogy used in the offered courses.

Student Learning Goals--The Hutchins School of Liberal Studies operates with the following student learning goals:

1. Interdisciplinarity
2. Depth of understanding and use of materials
3. Multiple perspectives in overall portfolio work
4. Creativity and higher level synthesis
5. Communication ability (written and oral)
6. Serninaring skills

Assessment of Student Learning--The Hutchins School of Liberal Studies has a portfolio assessment which is introduced in the gateway course and culminates in the final semester in the capstone course Senior Synthesis. The portfolio is a self-assessment by the students that they have reached competency in six areas: Interdisciplinarity, Depth of Understanding, Multiple Perspectives, Creativity and Higher Level Synthesis, Communication Ability, and Seminaring Skills. In addition to the portfolio, students complete an intellectual autobiography as part of their Senior Synthesis.

The following tables report the results of the survey conducted among teachers of General Education classes during the Fall of 1998. The data was collected by means of an objective questionnaire.