In the spring semester 2000, the SSU Academic Senate approved the creation of a GE Lab to address current issues in general education. In the fall of 2000, a group of five faculty members (Julia Allen, English; Andrew Botterell, Philosophy; Raymond Castro, Chicano and Latino Studies; Richard Gale, Hutchins School; and Scott Miller, Writing Center) examined Area A of GE (Communication and Critical Thinking). In the spring of 2001, the Area A group prepared a draft report that was shared with the GE Subcommittee.

To further the work in GE, a team of faculty members attended the Asheville Institute on General Education (AIGE), sponsored by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Funded by the Provost's Office, the team (Brett Christie, Kinesiology; Robert Eyler, Economics and Chair of the GE Subcommittee; Rick Luttmann, Mathematics and Chair of the Faculty; Phil Northen, Chair of Biology; and Elaine Sundberg, Director of Academic Programs) traveled to Asheville in June 2001 spending five days intensively reviewing and studying general education in the context of a liberal arts and sciences education. After meeting with national experts in GE and other teams attending the institute, and after attending a number of sessions dealing with issues facing general education, the SSU team developed proposed GE Learning Goals, discussed a series of assessment approaches, and outlined the role of a GE Faculty Coordinator to lead this effort. By building on the work of the Area A team, and by analyzing several other universities' learning goals, the team developed broad learning goals that it believes represent those of a liberal arts and sciences general education.

Since the fall convocation, discussions were fostered on the campus concerning GE, some in ad hoc settings, some in formalized settings with GE as a special topic, and many discussions in the GE subcommittee concerned with where to go from here. Many issues arose in these discussions concerning the process of defining GE, its mission, the goals based on that mission, and how to properly investigate whether the campus is delivering its mission for GE. To this end, the following is meant to expand the original discussion draft in such a way to foster more discussion, but also forward the process by defining what the goals of GE are based on our mission. Also, we need to be prepared to investigate how can we make the student experience better and more complete without sacrificing academic freedom or a large amount of faculty resources.

I think the idea here is investigation and information dissemination. We need to rid ourselves of myopia. These changes are coming, like it or not, and we can waste resources fighting them or we can channel our resources in a way such that student and faculty experiences are maximized and no one suffers greatly. Taking a stand and getting an agreement in place as to how this university is going to look at GE and providing flexibility through a dynamic plan is our charge. The following, when it is finalized, should deliver that outcome.

1. Proposed Mission Statement and General Education Learning Goals

experts at the AIGE conference, and the current SSU mission for GE. The learning goals are from the Area A Faculty Lab and Asheville Team's discussions, as well as suggestions from various campus constituencies.

The Mission: General Education (GE) at Sonoma State University is the foundation of a liberal arts and sciences education, preparing students for full participation and citizenship in a democratic society. GE embodies the overall mission of SSU to prepare students to be learned men and women who have a foundation for lifelong learning, a broad cultural perspective, a keen appreciation of intellectual and aesthetic achievements. Also, GE provides the foundation for students to be leaders and active citizens capable of pursuing fulfilling careers in a changing world such that they are concerned with contributing to the health and well-being of the world at large. SSU's general education provides students with the opportunity to achieve the following learning goals.

I. Acquire intellectual skills and capacities

If GE courses were to be assessed, will there be a checklist that each class must meet to be a GE course?

Will these goals dictate the way new GE courses are formulated, evaluated and make their way to become GE classes?

Do these goals really differentiate courses that are GE from other classes, as it could easily be shown that many advanced, disciplinary classes achieve the same basic goals?

As a matter of practice, the truncation of the commentary is purposeful. We received many comments concerning the goals, but the questions above are a composite of each major section. These goals are also the product of many discussions with experts in general education, as well as the Area A and B teams. The attached plan breaks down each question providing potential solutions.

1. Suggested Assessment Methods

teaching such courses if outcomes assessment is used to evaluate GE courses and the execution of the GE mission at SSU. A large issue is that using standardized assessment tools, certain disciplines have a larger learning curve and the output may be less meaningful. However, it is going to be the recommendation of this committee that schools and departments maintain their own assessment tools of choice, while providing a rationale for the use of a specific tool and what they believe is the meaningful data to flow from the methods used. Below are some suggested methods that may be used, and this committee sees no need to be cemented to one method only for a large subset of the university.

Course survey: Students currently fill out the SETE (Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness) at the end of each semester for courses taken. It is possible to add questions to the SETE that deal with students' perceptions of how well the course met the GE learning objectives.

Embedded course assessment: Questions related to GE program learning objectives could be embedded within course exams/specific assignments. (Example: All GE courses within a particular area of GE have as a common learning goal: II.c. Understand and be sensitive to the global environment. A question is crafted to address this learning goal. Instructors of each course score the exams as usual to assign course grades. Copies of the exam responses to the embedded question are aggregated and analyzed as outcomes assessment data.) Embedded assignments can be utilized in a similar way.

Portfolio assessment: Students could be asked to develop an electronic portfolio of representative work throughout their general education. The concept of the portfolio might be presented in the freshman seminar or perhaps in one of the foundation courses (English 101 or Philosophy 101). With the advice and support of their instructors, students would organize a representative sample of their work for each of their GE courses. In the capstone experience (see below), students would use the portfolio to assist them in a self-assessment of their GE experiences and how well they achieved the GE learning goals. This information could be aggregated and analyzed to review the outcomes of GE. Another possible use of the portfolio would be to extract a representative sample of portfolio artifacts for faculty to analyze for specific learning outcomes.

Capstone experience: Area E of General Education could be converted into a series of capstone courses. The strength of utilizing an upper division capstone course in GE is that students would be in a good position to reflect on the GE curriculum and their learning experiences, and they would appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback to the university. Additionally, meaningful assessment at the capstone level can be used to provide useful information to students about their accomplishments in the GE program.

Graduation exit survey/interviews/and/or focus groups: SSU has participated for several years in two national surveys (administered in alternate years to juniors/seniors at the time of the WEPT, Written English Proficiency Test): College Student Survey, Alexander Astin, UCLA, and the CSEQ, Pace, UCLA. SSU will now begin administering the NSSE, participating in a consortium of COPLAC institutions. CSU campuses will also form a consortium and data will be available for comparison purposes. On-line, web-based exit surveys can also be designed to be taken by students at the time of graduation from SSU (see Kinesiology Department for sample survey). Alternatively (or as an addition), students can be interviewed or participate in focus groups to get at more specific issues regarding their general education.

Alumni surveys: SSU currently administers the ACT Alumni Outcomes Survey. It is mailed out to SSU alumni every two years. Data from the survey provide SSU with information on how alumni perceive they have benefited from their undergraduate education.

General Education Mentoring Team: GE Mentors could be selected from different departments to assist other instructors in developing their skills as GE faculty. These mentors would be selected based on their expertise and excellence in teaching GE courses and would provide feedback on such things as course materials, creation of syllabi, classroom techniques, assignment development, portfolio assessment, etc. The mentors could also conduct informal discussion groups and provide ideas and feedback to other GE instructors.

Some the key issues involving assessment that came from the faculty include:

• Should assessment not take place on the current program before any changes are made?
• If assessment is done, who will administrate it? Will departments or schools or the university?
• Where will the resources come from for assessment with current and future budget problems?
• Why do any assessment at all?
• Why do we need mentors in teaching GE? Who will these people be?
• Will Area E be lost if these classes are used for capstone experiences for assessment?
• Will the output be used for budgeting, staffing, and RTP purposes?
• Will classes be cut from this data?

exposure of the topics and their potential and also historical problems with the administration over faculty workload expectation and the true meaning and output of assessment. Both of these topics must be part of any ongoing discussions.

A GE Faculty Coordinator could be appointed to further the goals of general education at SSU. The coordinator's duties might include the following: (1) assist in guiding this proposed plan through the faculty approval process and oversee its implementation; (2) develop the assessment effort in GE; (3) work with the GE Subcommittee on changes to GE curriculum and structure; (4) analyze the results of assessment; (5) provide feedback to faculty and students; and (6) develop and oversee the GE Mentoring team that will become an ongoing resource to GE faculty. The GE Faculty Coordinator could also develop a systematic plan for review of SSU's GE Program. This could include: helping departments create matrices that summarize the relationship between program goals and courses; creating a program review process with the GE subcommittee; and developing a timetable for systematic review of SSU's GE program and goals.

The major issues with the Coordinator position are obvious and threefold:

• Who would this Coordinator be, and what exactly would they coordinate?
• What is the job description for this position and what would the release time be?
• Who would pay for this person, and would they come from the faculty?

people are depends on the protocols put into place. If the assessment were done at the department or school level, then the data could flow to a central clearinghouse for assembly and dissemination to the origin of the information in specific and the administration in summary form. This position depends a great deal on what process is defined. This should be a key part of the retreat.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that with assessment there must be a clearinghouse. There is no way to expect a true dissemination of information nor a plausible one coming from disaggregated units with different assessment measures. One of the larger fallacies in assessment is that one must be versed in every form of assessment used to administrate or coordinate the data and outcomes. Assessment is not rocket science; it is merely the analysis of a feedback loop which is at its most complex a scientific investigation and reading comprehension at its least complex. Whoever coordinates this process should have the following attributes:

• Tenured faculty member who has some statistical knowledge and/or knowledge of assessment methods and analysis.
• Time release to do the coordination effort is not damaging to the department or school of the faculty member.
• Faculty member must not sit on any RTP committees at any level.
• Faculty member must not sit on GE, APC, EPC, or the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate.
• The position must have a hard term structure, and only two terms can be served by any faculty member consecutively.
• The rotating position must alternate schools as well as budgets and resources allow.

The timeline below is meant to be a motivator rather than a hard schedule of events. Its main purpose is to provide some deadlines for the process and to give a guide as to where we may face the most friction over these issues. There is little doubt that the issues surrounding GE will show their faces multiple times in this process. Our hope is that we can craft a document and some policy recommendations that we, as a faculty, can live with in the majority because the student outcomes are augmented by the included changes. The GE committee schedule should be met with no problem; however, it is a soft deadline.

August 20-November 1: Broad-based discussion of the GE Goals and Assessment Approaches in department meetings, appropriate Academic Senate committee meetings, Dean's Council, etc. The proposal will be posted on the SSU home page and e-mail comments will be solicited. Discussion sessions will also be conducted throughout the semester.

November: Revision of GE Proposal: After receiving all the feedback by November 1, the GE coordinator, the Director of Academic Programs and members of the Asheville team will revise the proposal for presentation to the faculty committees.

December: Revised draft document presented to the GE Subcommittee for review.

February: GE Subcommittee review, comment and approval

March: Document forwarded to EPC for review and approval

April: Document submitted to the Executive Committee and the Academic Senate for final approval

May: GE Faculty Coordinator receives the final approved document and begins implementation

GE Faculty Coordinator develops plan for assessment to begin in Fall 2002

Submitted by: Robert Eyler, Chair, GE Subcommittee of the Educational Policies Committee, SSU.

11/15/01