Free Adobe Acrobat
Many files on this site require Acrobat Reader. To get free Reader, click above.

History of Undergraduate GER and Program Assessment at NC State University

 

1978 - 1979
 The Provost’s Forum asked the question, “Is there something missing in the education and development of students attending NC State?” To follow up on these discussions, an ad hoc committee was formed to study general education at NCSU. This committee submitted recommendations in September, 1979.
1980
 In response to the ad hoc committee's recommendations, the Provost's Forum Committee on Core Curriculum was formed. The recommendation was that further discussion needed to take place.
1984-1985
 The Commission on Humanities and Social Sciences was formed in August, 1984. This commission was formed to consider the role of humanities and social sciences at NCSU. They conducted surveys, formal interviews, and solicited general comments through informal hearings. The recommendation by this commission was to establish a core curriculum.
1985-1987
 In October, 1985, a Commission on Undergraduate General Education (the Bland Commission) was formed to broaden the discussion about general education, beyond the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. This Commission made extensive recommendations, increased involvement of University Committees and brought NCSU faculty closer to consensus concerning changes needed for general education.
1988
 One result of the Bland Commission's study was an increased awareness that no formal committee or other mechanism was in place for accepting and/or implementing changes in general education. In response, the Council on Undergraduate Education (CUE) was formed in April, 1998.
1989
 The University completed a plan for implementing outcomes assessment. Responsibility for assessing general education was given to the Provost's Office; responsibility for assessing academic majors was given to the deans and department heads. The Provost's Office turned to CUE as the logical committee to develop assessment of general education. University Planning and Analysis (UPA) was given responsibility to coordinate assessment, provide technical assistance and training, and data where feasible and appropriate.

Outcomes assessment initiatives centered in academic programs and varied greatly. Five academic departments piloted a more systematic approach to assessment in their majors, but not in general education. Some of the byproducts of the pilots were successful, other portions were not as successful because department leaders had little knowledge of assessment. We recognized we needed more assessment training and worked to figure out how to provide it. These pilot experiences formed the basis of the first generation of assessment efforts in the major.
May, 1992
 Council of Deans and Provost approved CUE’s recommendation to implement new general education requirements (GERs) in fall, 1994.
Fall, 1992

Proposal for Outcomes Assessment of GER created – proposal called for sub-committees to be formed by the CUE and focus on four questions 1) what learning is occurring now 2) what needs to happen to improve learning 3) how do we make the improvements 4) how do we know if those improvements worked.  See Appendix A for more details and results. New full-time coordinator of university assessment was hired and each academic department designated a full-time faculty member as a coordinator of assessment. In addition, five faculty were given course release time and trained to act as consultants.

After the 1989 plan for implementing assessment was approved, the
Provost's Office adjusted the undergraduate program review process to include information about job placement rates, licensing rates, and
other program outcomes. However, the process did not require
departments to formulate explicit learning outcomes. As a separate
process, the University asked each department to develop and implement Institutional Effectiveness Plans for each academic major that included outcomes, measures, and evaluation strategies. To support this effort, during 1992-93, UPA retained five trainer/consultants to help the departments and sponsored university-wide workshops and seminars on assessment.

Spring, 1993
 First evaluation plan for GERs was rejected by ad hoc committee on General Education citing that faculty are the most knowledgeable about how effective GERs are and thus should be included in the evaluation of GERs. See Appendix B for more details and results. We worked to figure out how to get faculty more involved in the assessment of GER.
Fall, 1993

Each department submited an assessment plan for the majors to UPA. The plans were well thought out and there was evidence of faculty participation, however, many of the outcomes required data that was not readily available and thus, some departments did not continue in their efforts. The question of how to get "readily available data" was raised, thus UPA enhanced data availability on their web site.
1993-1994
 Mission Statement for Undergraduate Education was drafted.
Fall, 1994

Mission Statement for Undergraduate Education was adopted.

New General Education Requirements implemented.

Long-range assessment plan that identified priorities for assessing general education was created by CUE.  A sub-group on evaluation was created.  And the NC State Writing Working Group (WWG) was convened by CUE to examine GERs on writing and speaking. Work on drafting outcomes for writing and speaking commences. See Appendix C for more details and results.

The Riverside BASE was administered to a random sample of 500 first year students. See Appendix C for more details and results.

Reports were submitted by UPA on the use of results obtained through their efforts in 1992-1993.

Fall, 1995

Based upon the reports submitted in Fall, 1994, UPA identified shared data needs and launched the student survey program in 1995 and revised its web site to provide departments assessment data available from the University.

Spring, 1995
 WWG worked with appropriate faculty to revise GER outcomes, discuss the design and guidelines for first year academic seminars, and consider the impact of the implementation of the GERs on enrollments in specific courses.  Thirteen faculty/staff attended Richard Paul’s Critical Thinking Conference.  See Appendix C for more details and results.

UPA launched Student Survey program (see earlier note)

After the first cycle of implementing Institutional Effectiveness Plans, departments found it difficult to sustain collecting data on student's achievement of learning outcomes. Without adequate training and support, assessment in the majors waned in many departments.

It was decided that the College Student Experience Questionnaire and the Riverside BASE was not a good “fit” for NC State University The instrument did not appear to match how the learning was delivered. See Appendix C for more details and results.

Questions about general education goals/desired outcomes were added to the First Year, Senior, and Alumni University-wide Surveys under the general heading of "knowledge, skills, and personal development." This data has been (and in some cases is still) used by several departments to guide higher level decision-making about GER. See http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/index.htm for more details.

Six of the nine NC State University Associate Deans participated in a pilot project related to developing student portfolios for syllabi review. This initiative started some individual student portfolio assessment, but no program portfolio resulted. Faculty needed more training in assessment.
Spring, 1996
UPA began presenting university survey data annually to the Executive Officers Meeting, Provost's staff, deans/associates, and other groups. The survey results were also posted on the web for the university as a whole, for colleges, and for individual departments to interpret and use. Individual units varied in how they used the results from the GER-related questions. Undergraduate Affairs notified its service units about results relevant to them. Some of the College of Engineering/ABET team used "knowledge, skills, and personal development" results in their program's assessment plans. Committee on Undergraduate Academic Program Review  (CUPR) will later see these in the Undergraduate Academic Program Review (UAPR) plans that were reviewed in Summer 2002. The drafting of writing and speaking outcomes continued. See http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/ases_ovv.htm for more details.
Spring, 1997
 Associate Provost Frank Abrams, along with Karen Helm from UPA, proposed a revision of the current program review process. In addition, they convene the Committee on Undergraduate Academic Program Development and Review Process Improvement (CUAPDRPI). A resulting recommendation of this committee was a portfolio review process which integrates student outcome assessment with program review (see Spring 1999). This process will eventually involve CUE to advise on GER outcomes reported upon in the new program review process.
Fall, 1997

CUAPDRPI began its planning process and piloted a portfolio review in History. The Hewlett Initiative began and attention was focused on assessing this effort.   See http://www.ncsu.edu/fctl/Initiatives/Hewlett_Programs/ for more details.

Several members of CUE expressed concern for lack of assessment in GERs for writing and speaking. In response to the Writing Work Group (WWG) recommendations submitted in the spring of 1997, the Council adopted guidelines and passed them on to the UCCC and the Campus Writing and Speaking Board for review.
Spring, 1998
 CUAPDRPI presented the new process and the pilot History portfolio to University Course and Curriculum Committee (UCCC). UCCC endorsed the process and reviewed the portfolios. Questions about general education goals/desired outcomes were added to the Sophomore University-wide Surveys under the general heading of "knowledge, skills, and personal development." See Spring 1996 - Present for infomation on how faculty used results.
Fall, 1998
 Two more departments piloted the new review process. CUAPDRPI revised the review process guidelines based on these departments experiences.
Spring, 1999

CUAPDRPI recommended the integration of student outcome assessment with program review. CUPR continued the work of CUAPDRPI (see Fall 2000) and CUE will be brought in to advise on GER outcomes reported upon in the new program review process.

CUAPDRPI delivered final report and recommendations. Recommended ad hoc committee develop guidelines for program review and combining UCCC and CUE into single committee.
Fall, 1999
 First Year, Senior, and Alumni University-wide surveys results were posted on the web for the university as a whole, for colleges, and for individual departments to interpret and use. Individual units varied in how they used the results from the GER-related questions.
Undergraduate Affairs notified its service units about results relevant to them. Some of the COE/ABET team used “knowledge, skills, and personal development” results in their programs assessment plans. The CUPR has seen some in the UAPR plans reviewed in Summer 2002. See http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/ases_ovv.htm for more details.
Fall, 2000

CUAPDRPI recommended an assessment-based process for undergraduate program review. The office of Undergraduate Affairs formed the Committee on Undergraduate Academic Program Review  (CUPR) to develop the detailed guidelines and an implementation plan for the new Undergraduate Academic Program Review process, which will include GERs. One of CUAPDRPI's concerns was the integration of the (internal) review processes with other departmental concerns.Therefore, CUPR had representation from both UCCC and CUE.

The campus writing and speaking outcomes formed a foundation for GER assessment in the discipline.
Spring, 2001
 CUPR recommended that CUE should develop the GER assessment plan and CUE was charged with assessing GERs.  CUE developed a process with criteria for removing GER courses from the GER and a process with criteria for adding courses to the GER list.  CUE also developed and approved questions to use when reviewing GER rationales.  CUE began reviewing rationales. See Assessment Impact Report for more detail and results.
Fall, 2001
 CUE underwent outcomes assessment training and realized that only using overview survey data does not provide information for improving GER courses as GER courses. As a result, CUE began to refine GER assessment. CUE continued reviewing rationales and began drafting objectives for each GER area. See Assessment Impact Report for more detail and results.
Spring, 2002
 CUE continued drafting objectives and a sub-committee began to draft a proposal for assessing GERs. See Assessment Impact Report for more detail and results.
Summer, 2002
 The CUE sub-committee revised proposal for assessing GERs. See Assessment Impact Report for more detail and results.
Fall, 2002
 CUE continued drafting objectives and the sub-committee presents a proposal for assessing GERs.See Assessment Impact Report for more detail and results.
Spring, 2003 CUE endorsed GER objectives, implementation plan for GER assessment. Pilot Study began. Pilot Faculty drafted outcomes and means of evaluation. See Assessment Impact Report for more detail and results.
Fall, 2003
 CUE underwent additional training on assessment and began to apply the rubric for evaluating the new course action forms (CAF). Pilot group taught its GER courses and wrote reports. Phased implementation of GER began with training of PAMS faculty.
Spring, 2004 Pilot study was completed and refinements were made in GER assessment process. Phase I team is teaching the GER courses. Phase II is undergoing training. CUE continues its assessment training.

Several item in this document have been adapted from:
Jarrett, B.H., Green, R.L. (1993). Brief History of General Education at North Carolina State University (1978-1993). Office of University Planning and Analysis, NCSU.