FACULTY SENATE MINUTES #4 

   October 18, 2011 

The fourth meeting of the Faculty Senate 2011-2012 was called to order by Chair Timothy Phillips on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM in Jacobus Lounge, Brockway Hall.

SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Phillips, J. Hendrick, R. Grantham, C. Schubert, D. West, W. Miller, R. Kendrick, J. Hartsock, J. Walkuski, B. Wodi, K. Polasek, O. White, L. Lin, R. Borden, T. Vigars, M. Chandler, K. Pristash, E. McCabe, D. Berger, E. Owens, P. Schroeder, J. Piperato, J. Reardon, E. Durgin, E. Bitterbaum, M. Prus, G. Sharer, G. Clarke, S. Anderson

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT:  R. Kendrick, J. Alemzadeh, A. Dearie, J. Rayle, H. Lindh, T. Slack, R. Franco, W. Shaut, A. Kuiken, R. Spitzer, A. Fitz-Gibbon, M. Connell

GUESTS PRESENT:  M. Barsoni, A. Thomas, M. Canfield 

I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  The Minutes were approved from October 4, 2011.

II. SENATE ACTIONS:

The nomination for a committee vacancy from the Committee on Committees was approved (Approved)

III.  CHAIR’S REPORT:  Chair Phillips reported that the Faculty Senate will be participating in the consultative search committee for the Dean of the School of Education.

IV. VICE CHAIR:  J. Hendrick –.No report. 

V. TREASURER’S REPORTR. Grantham – No report. 

VI. SECRETARY’S REPORT:No report (vacant)

VII.  PRESIDENT’S REPORT:   The President gave a brief report. 

VIII.  STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS: 

Student Affairs Committee  - No report (absent)

Academic Faculty Affairs Committee – No report (absent)

Long-Range Planning Committee – T. Phillips reported that the Long Range Planning Committee will be meeting Thursday to elect a chair.

Educational Policy Committee –  D. West reported that the committee met a week ago from last Friday.

Professional Affairs Committee G. Clarke – No report.

IX. OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Committee on Teaching Effectiveness– J. Walkuski reported that a meeting has been called to elect a chair.

Committee on Committees – The Committee on Committee’s report was read and one nomination for a committee vacancy was approved.

College Research Committee – No report (absent)

General Education Committee –  No report. 

Graduate Faculty Executive Committee – J. Alemzadeh – No report (absent)

Committee on Teaching Awards – D. West, Chair – No report.

X. AREA SENATOR’S REPORTS:  There was one Area Senator Report.

XI. SUNY SENATOR’S REPORT – D. Berger – D. Berger reported that he will be attending the UFS Fall Plenary at SUNY Purchase this weekend.

XII. STUDENT SENATOR’S REPORTS: J. Reardon gave a report which is appended to the Minutes.

XIII. OLD BUSINESS:

There was no old business.

XIV. NEW BUSINESS: 

The General Education Assessment Plan 2011-2015 was introduced and there was a question and answer period.

There were no announcements.

Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary

The following reports are appended to the minutes in the order they were submitted:

(1)     Committee on Committees list, submitted by J. Barry, Chair

(2)     Student Senator Report, submitted by J. Reardon

(3)     General Education Assessment Plan 2011/12 – 2014/15

APPENDIX 1

                            Committee on Committees – Report to the Faculty Senate

                                                          October 18, 2011

                                                  Submitted by J. Barry, Chair

Item #1

The following nomination is being recommended by Committee on Committees:

General Education Committee, Academic Faculty at large, 2011-12 – Linda Pickett

This requires confirmation of the Faculty Senate.

Item #2

The following vacancies still exist:

At large:

Faculty Senate Secretary (2011-12)

Math/Science:

Student Affairs Committee (complete unexpired term 2010-12)

Social/Behavioral Science:

Committee on Committees (2011-13)

Student Affairs Committee (2011-13)

School of Professional Studies:

Committee on Teaching Awards (1/1/12 – 12/31/14)

Educational Policy Committee (2 seats) (2010-12 complete unexpired term, 2011-13)

Professional Staff:

College Research Committee (complete unexpired term 2010-13)

Senators:

Full-time Lecturer, Schools of Education/Professional Studies – 2011-13

Respectfully submitted,

Joanne Barry

Chair

Faculty Senate Officers (Elected:  1 yr. Term)

·     Phillips, Tim  Chair

Hendrick, Joy  Vice-Chair

     Vacant   Secretary (no more than 2 successive terms in same office)

    Grantham, Regina Treasurer (no more than 2 successive terms in same office)

Faculty Senate Steering Committee (pending chair elections in fall)

SUNY Senator  (Elected: 3 yr. term)

SUNY Senator – Alternate (Elected: 3 yr. term)

Academic Faculty Affairs Committee (appointed: 2 yr. term) 

Auxiliary Services Corporation (Elected:  3 yr. term) – (C. on C. does NOT run election for MC reps)

College Curriculum Review Committee (Appointed: 2 yr. term)   (no more than 2 successive terms) 

College Research Committee (Appointed: 3 yr. term) [Qualifications: should have received grant from external funding or reviewed grants from an outside agency.]

Committee on Committees (Elected: 2 yr. term)

Committee on Teaching Awards (Appointed: 3 yr. term/ term runs January through December) (minimum 5 yrs. teaching at SUNY Cortland)

Committee on Teaching Effectiveness (Appointed: 4 yr. term) (no consecutive terms)

Educational Policy Committee (Appointed: 2 yr. term)

Facilities and Master Plan Oversight Committee (Appointed: 3 yr. term)

Faculty Representative to the Student Senate (Elected: 1 yr. term) (no more than 2 successive terms)

General Education Committee (Appointed: 2 yr. term)

Long Range Planning Committee (Appointed: 3 yr. term)

Professional Affairs Committee (Appointed: 3 yr. term)

Student Affairs Committee (Appointed: 2 yr. term)

_____________ - nomination(s) in process - pending confirmation

Vacant – seats filled via Committee on Committee process

________________ - seats filled by other committees/organizations

APPENDIX 2

Student Senator Report

Submitted by J. Reardon

·     Fall-Fest: November 5 from 11-3. Going to have pumpkins, cravings, and candy apples.

o     Clubs will be participating in this event. (e.g. APEM will be doing a Kan-Jam Tournament).

·     SGA Theme: Ubuntu: Humanity for all.  “I am who I am because of who we all are.”

-We are asking our clubs to support our theme to support diversity on our campus and to educate the campus.

                                                           APPENDIX 3

                            General Education Assessment Plan 2011/12 – 2014/15

To:   SUNY Cortland Faculty Senate

From:  General Education Committee

Date:   October 12, 2011

RE:   General Education Assessment Plan for 2011-2015

Please find attached the proposed General Education Assessment Plan for 2011/12 - 2014/15 for your review and approval.  The General Education committee considered previous plans, identified best practices on our campus, and looked at the scholarship on, and national trends in,   general education assessment to inform this new plan. The plan includes:

·     Four year assessment cycle

The move to a four assessment cycle from the previous three year cycle allows for ongoing assessment and disburses the work of assessing 14 areas across a manageable timeframe for all involved.

·     Assessment of student performance

The expanded use of in-class embedded assessments to reflect student understanding of the GE learning outcomes and the use of ad hoc or standing committees to oversee specific categories when relevant.

·     Review of institutional indicators related to GE

The committee will also review data from institutional standardized surveys looking at questions related to the outcomes of our GE program and categories including the National Survey of Student Engagement, Collegiate Learning Assessment, and Student Opinion Survey.

We look forward to your feedback and appreciate your review of this proposal.

 
Thank you.

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PLAN

2011/12 – 2014/15

State University of New York College at Cortland

September 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUNY CORTLAND GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PLAN

2011/12 – 2014/15

Introduction

The goal of General Education Assessment at SUNY Cortland is to better understanding student achievement in the specific areas, examine effectiveness of the program as a whole, and engage the campus community in dialogue about the purpose and outcomes of general education. This plan looks to assess the entire program and categories and not focus on individual courses, departments or instructors. Building upon the previous two cycle of General Education Assessment (beginning in 2002), the General Education Assessment Plan for SUNY Cortland is based upon the following:

1.     Establishing a timeframe and flexible structure for on-going assessment.

2.     Supporting clarification and communication of learning outcomes of general education.

3.     Support use of different methods based on the faculty determinations of best assessment for category assessment.

4.     Combining category assessment with institutional indicators from assessments including the National Survey of Student Engagement, Collegiate Learning Assessment, and Student Opinion Survey.

The plan follows a four year assessment cycle, outlines assessment methods, clarifies roles, and makes recommendations for increasing the use of assessment data for on-going understanding and development of the general education program. The goal is to support authentic and meaningful assessment in the most efficient methods possible while maintaining the integrity throughout the process. A review of current trends in General Education, including the Association of American Colleges and Universities Value: Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education, helped inform this work.

The SUNY Cortland General Education Program

The General Education program at SUNY Cortland reflects a merger of the college’s longstanding general education learning outcomes with the 2000 SUNY General Education program required system wide.  There are 13 categories fulfilled through coursework reviewed by the General Education Committee. A complete GE course roster is available online showing all approved coursework by category.  The GE program also includes two infused competency categories and outcomes are achieved by completion of the program as a whole—Critical Thinking and Information Management. Learning outcomes for each category and the competency areas are listed in Appendix 1.

Responsibility for General Education Assessment

The General Education Committee, a standing committee of the Faculty Senate, has primary responsibility for GE assessment including communication with faculty, review of materials, and coordination of various working committees across all of the categories. The Institutional Research and Assessment Office (IRA) has primary responsibility to support the implementation of GE assessment with additional support from the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, Dean of Arts and Sciences, and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The GE Committee reviews, endorses and approves the GE assessment procedures for the College to assure best practices exist. The Committee meets bi-weekly and relies on the administrative structure and responsibilities of the office of IRA in carrying out all tasks of the Committee. Such tasks include, but are not restricted to sampling procedures, implementation of assessment procedures, analysis of results, and assessment reporting. The office of Institutional Research and Assessment conducts all General Education assessment tasks with the approval and support of the GE Committee. The success and viability of the GE Assessment Plan at SUNY Cortland is dependent on the cooperation and coordination between the entire College faculty, GE Committee, and office of Institutional Research and Assessment.

All faculty teaching General Education have responsibility for participation in General Education assessment and support of the learning outcomes by:

1.     Ensuring that course syllabi include the specific course category and learning outcomes for the GE category of the course

2.     Participation in assessment activities as relevant to the category assessments

3.     Participation in review of assessment results and discussions on implications for category

Assessment Levels

In following the current discussions on general education outcomes and assessment, we have looked to support multiple methods of assessment to add dimension to our assessment (Leskes and Wright, 2005).

Syllabi Review

As a part of each assessment cycle, selected course syllabi will be collected and reviewed by the General Education Committee to ensure that syllabi reflect the GE category, learning outcomes, minimum writing requirements, and clarity of connection between the course content and category outcomes.

Student Performance

Depending upon the nature of the category, there will be different options for assessment driven by faculty interest and expertise in the related areas. The options for assessment include:

1.     Standing committees or ad hoc groups create common assessment to be administered and reviewed across all sections. Examples of this include the Writing Committee’s oversight of Written Basic Communication.

2.     In-class embedded assessment where faculty of selected course sections submit assignments (single or combination of assignments) that reflect student understanding for each of the GE learning outcomes (SLO). The instructor will submit the assignment, scoring guide, raw scores, and scaled scores to the GE rubric (Appendix 2) for each SLO. The faculty will also be asked to submit samples of student work on these assessments. This process allows multiple sections to “use the same outcomes and rubrics, thereby guaranteeing consistency without the use of cookie-cutter syllabi or methods” (Gerretson and Golson, 2005, p.139).

The IRA office will oversee the collection of all data, norming, and analysis of normed scores on the GE Rubric.  The table below outlines each category, the type of assessment, and the group overseeing the specific category assessment.

Institutional Measures Related to General Education

This year, the General Education Committee will be including a review of three major instruments and their findings to augment the GE assessment. Not only does this give us added dimension to our assessment, but it provides national and peer institution comparisons. All three are national surveys administered on our campus every three years:

1.     National Survey of Student Engagement administered every three years

2.     Student Opinion Survey administered every three years

3.     Collegiate Learning Assessment

Appendix 4 shows the related questions to be reviewed for the NSSE and SOS.

  Assessment Procedures

Timetable

The GE categories will be assessed on a four year plan as outlined in Appendix 3. This schedule allows for ongoing assessment and disburses the work of assessing 14 areas across a manageable timeframe for all involved with the work. Given that it takes a year from the start of assessment of a category to the review of results, this will allow time for implantation of changes before the category is assessed again.   The move to a four year cycle from the previous three year cycles was also in acknowledgement of the multiple assessments that faculty face within GE and for program assessment and other accreditations.

The table below outlines a sample timeline for use of in-class assessments.

If a standard assessment is being used across sections in a category, the following sample timeframe would apply.

Course Samples

IRA will select the sample of courses to be included in the assessment based on the course schedule.  The categories that are course-embedded will use a stratified random sampling procedure to ensure that the samples are representative of the population of students enrolled in GE courses in any semester.  Specifically, this will be a two-level process: (1) a course-level cluster sampling procedure will be used to identify 25% of courses per knowledge, skill, or competency area; (2) a stratified random sampling approach (stratified according to course level, class size, time of class, and course content) will be used to identify and assess at least 20% of all students taking courses in a GE category in the assessment semester.

Administration of Assessments

Faculty will be required to participate in the assessment if selected, using one of the assessment methods identified by the ad hoc faculty group for that GE category.  Since most of the assessment tasks will be chosen by individual instructors and course-embedded, they will be integral to course requirements.  A major advantage is that students will give their best effort because the activity is part of course assessment and their final grade.  IRA will be responsible for producing and distributing assessment materials, recruitment and training of groups of faculty to grade essay assessments, and coordinating the work of ad hoc faculty groups who will interpret the instructors’ marks for application of the rubrics.

Validity and Reliability Indices

Validity and reliability information has been collected since the start of Cortland’s GE Assessment Program.  Expert opinion by faculty teaching in specific GE categories and ad hoc faculty groups will be used to assess face validity.  We expect that face validity will increase during this new four-year cycle, as faculty members are more directly involved in the process, as individual instructors can determine the assessment tasks and be part of faculty groups for each GE category, reviewing proposed assessment tasks and assessment results in their fields of specialization.  The IRA office is also conducting validity studies of course grades to explore the utilization of course grades as indicators of student learning in the general education categories.

Aggregation and Documentation of Findings

The office of Institutional Research and Assessment (IRA) will be responsible for analyzing the results of the assessment and for reporting the results to external constituents as appropriate.  At all stages of dissemination, data will be treated in aggregate form and anonymity of students, faculty members, and courses will be maintained. IRA will maintain historical data on the assessment process.

Results, Review, Recommendations: Closing the Loop

A major focus of the assessment efforts in this coming cycle will be on providing the findings for categories in timely manner and foster dialogue on each category assessment as well as the entire General Education program.  Recent efforts to hold meetings to discuss findings have been consistently met with limited interest. The committee will look at ways to make the information more engaging including:

1.     Summary information will go to the entire campus

2.     Feedback from faculty teaching in categories collected electronically using survey software

3.     Hold a meeting on General Education findings as a whole open to the campus

4.     All feedback will be then shared to look for possible changes and to inform individual faculty reflection and course development.

5.     Look to integrate all sources of data (outcome measures, survey data) and present to campus

In addition, we will look to identify peer institutions and further research best practices in general education assessment to inform our work.

Appendix 1 

General Education Category Learning Outcomes

GE 1.  Quantitative Skills

The student will demonstrate the ability: 1.) to interpret and draw inferences from mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables and schematics; 2.)to represent mathematical information symbolically, visually, numerically and verbally; 3.) to employ quantitative methods, such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry or statistics, to solve problems; 4.) to estimate and check mathematical results for reasonableness; 5.) to recognize the limits of mathematical and statistical methods.

GE 2.  Natural Sciences

Students will demonstrate: 1.) an understanding of the methods scientists use to explore natural phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical analysis; 2.) knowledge of the principles of one or more of the natural sciences; and 3.) the application of scientific data, concepts and models in one or more of the natural sciences and relate the relevant technology and principles they have studied to modern life.

GE 3.  Social Sciences

Students will demonstrate: 1.) an understanding of the methods social scientists use to explore social phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical and interpretive analysis; 2.) knowledge of major concepts, models and issues of at least one discipline in the social sciences.

GE 4.  United States History and Society

Students will demonstrate: 1.) knowledge of a basic narrative of American history such as: political, economic, social, and cultural, including knowledge of unity and diversity in American society; 2.) an understanding of common institutions in American society and how they have affected different groups (including ethnic minorities and women); 3.) an understanding of America’s evolving relationship with the rest of the world; and 4.) an understanding of the American Republic by examining relationships among the state, intermediary institutions, and civil society.

GE 5.  Western Civilization

Students will be able to: 1.) describe within an historical context major Western political, geopolitical, economic, social, and/or intellectual developments; 2.) analyze the relationship between the development of ideas and historical change in Western and other regions of the world; and 3.) discuss distinctive features of contemporary Western civilization in terms of such areas as history, institutions, economy, society and culture.

GE 6.  Contrasting Cultures

Students will be able to: 1.) demonstrate an understanding of the distinctive features of the history, institutions, economy, society, culture, etc., of one non-Western civilization; 2.) compare and/or contrast another contemporary culture or other contemporary cultures with the dominant themes of U.S. culture; and 3.) demonstrate an understanding of cultural differences in world views, traditions, cultural institutions, values, social systems, languages and means of communication.

GE 7.  Humanities

Students will: 1.) be able to critically respond to works in the humanities; 2.) be able to discuss major human concerns as they are treated in the humanities; and 3.) demonstrate an understanding of the conventions and methods of at least one area in the humanities.

GE 8.  The Arts

Students will demonstrate an understanding of: 1.) at least one principal form of artistic expression and the creative process inherent therein; and 2.) the significance of artistic expression in past and/or present civilizations.

GE 9.  Foreign Language

Students will demonstrate: 1.) basic proficiency in the understanding and use of a foreign language; and 2.) an understanding of the distinctive features of culture(s) associated with the language they are studying.

GE 10a. Basic Communication: Writing

The student will: 1.) produce coherent texts within common college-level written forms; 2.) demonstrate the ability to revise and improve texts; and 3.) research a topic, develop an argument, and organize supporting details.

GE 10b. Basic Communication: Presentation Skills

Students will: 1.) develop proficiency in oral discourse; and 2.) demonstrate the ability to evaluate an oral presentation according to established criteria.

GE 11.  Prejudice and Discrimination

Students will demonstrate an understanding of: 1. issues such as power and bias as they relate to prejudice and discrimination and how these issues have determined attitudes, institutions, dominance and subdominance; 2. how various beliefs can lead to conflicting conclusions about a society and its norms, values and institutions.

GE 12 Science, Technology, Values and Society

Students will demonstrate an understanding of: 1. the manner in which value judgments are justified and how interpretation of technical information can lead to different conclusions, and/or; 2. issues at the interface of science and society that impact the modern world.

GE 13: Natural Sciences Laboratory (second course complimenting GE 2)

See GE 2 for learning outcomes.

GE Competency: Critical Thinking (no specific courses)

Students will: 1. identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own or others' work; and 2. develop well-reasoned arguments.

GE Competency:  Information Management (no specific courses)

Students will: (a) perform the basic operations of personal computer use; (b) understand and use basic research techniques; and (c) locate, evaluate, and synthesize information from a variety of sources.

Appendix 2

  Cortland Rubric Used for all General Education Categories

Appendix 3:   GE Assessment Schedule

Appendix 4

Related Items from Student Surveys with Related Categories or Competencies

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)  

·     Worked on paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources (critical thinking)

·     Using computers in educational work (information management)

·     Writing clearly and effectively (basic communication)

·     Speaking clearly and effectively (basic communication)

·     Thinking critically and analytically (critical thinking)

·     Analyzing quantitative problems (quantitative skills)

·     Using computing and information technology (information management)

Student Opinion Survey (SOS)

·     Availability of General Education Courses (program in general)

·     Been required to think critically in completing assignments (critical thinking)

·     Had faculty who required you to make judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods (critical thinking, information management)

·     Acquiring information, ideas and concepts (critical thinking)

·     Acquiring analytical thinking skills (critical thinking)

·     Understanding and appreciating ethnic/cultural diversity and other individual differences (possible Contrasting Cultures and Prejudice and Discrimination)

·     Writing clearly and effectively (basic communication)

·     Speaking clearly and effectively (basic communication)

·     Using computer and information technology effectively (information management)

·     Understanding political and social issues

·     Acquiring knowledge and skills for further academic study

·     Acquiring knowledge and skills for lifelong learning

Reference List and Additional Resources

Brandon, P, Young, D., Shavelson, R, and Jones, R. (2008). Lessons learned from the process of curriculum developers’ and assessment developers’ collaboration on the development of embedded formative assessments. Applied Measurement in Education., Vol. 21, p. 390-402.

Cummings, R. Maddux, C., & Richmond, A. (2008). Curriculum-embedded performance assessment in higher education: maximum efficiency and minimum disruption. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 6, December 2008, 599-605.

Gerretson, H. and Golson, E. (2005). Synopsis of the Use of Course Embedded Assessment in a Medium Sized Public University’s General Education Program. The Journal of General Education Assessment, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2005.

Leskes, A. and Miller, R. . 2005. General education: A self-study guide for review and assessment.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Leskes, Andrea and Barbara D. Wright. 2005. The Art and Science of Assessing General Education Outcomes.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

McConnell, C., Hoover, G, & Miller, G. (2008). Course embedded assessment and assurance of learning: examples in business disciplines. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, p 19-34.