Teaching, Learning & Assessment

CSUMB's Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) were approved by the Academic Senate in 2015. Each of the five ILO1 intellectual skills have been assessed twice, most recently in summer 2017. The 2018 pilot projects are the first institution-level assessments of ILO2 and ILO3. Going forward, the campus will alternate assessment of ILO1 with assessment of ILO2 and ILO3, with each being assessed every other year for the primary purpose of learning how to better support student learning (see goals below). ILO4 (Specialized Knowledge) is comprised of each program's Major Learning Outcomes (MLOs) and assessed as described in each program's Program Improvement Plan (PIP). The spring 2018 IL02 and ILO3 pilot assessment projects will be facilitated by the ILO2 and ILO3 Coordinators and Assessment Scholars with support from the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

ILO2 and ILO3 Coordinators and Assessment Scholars

ILO2: Personal, Professional, and Social Responsibility

• ILO2 Coordinator: Nick Dahan
• ILO2 Assessment Scholars
  • T.B.D. Application below

ILO3: Integrative Knowledge

• ILO3 Coordinator: Joanna Morrissey
• ILO3 Assessment Scholars
  • T.B.D. Application below

Goals

• Identify, compare, and contrast the different ways CSUMB programs support personal, professional, and social responsibility (ILO2) and integrative knowledge (ILO3).
• Advance and disseminate different approaches to supporting student achievement of ILO2 and ILO3 that programs and instructors can use in their own work with students.
• Evaluate the usefulness of the proposed revision of the ILO2 statement and rubric developed by the ILO2 Task Force and make recommendations to the Assessment Committee for the spring 2019 review of the ILOs..
• Evaluate the usefulness of the AAC&U Integrative Learning VALUE Rubric for assessing ILO3, if needed modify the rubric to fit CSUMB's unique context, and make recommendations to the Assessment Committee for the spring 2019 review of the ILOs.
• Foster a shared institutional understanding of personal, professional, and social responsibility and integrative knowledge and how they interact with specialized knowledge (ILO4) in each discipline to support the success of all CSUMB students.
• Increase CSUMB's collective ability to foster student achievement of ILO2 and ILO3.
• Develop recommendations for how programs can support and assess student achievement of ILO2 and ILO3 as required for Outcomes Assessment and Program Review.

Process

• The College Faculty Associates for Assessment will initiate conversations with each degree program in their college to...
  • Determine how ILO2 and ILO3 are or could be integrated with major learning outcomes (MLOs).
  • Identify courses at or near graduation in which students complete work relevant to ILO2 and ILO3 (this can be in the same or different courses and/or in the same or different assignments).
  • Invite programs to contribute student work from those courses to the summer assessment project.
• Faculty Associates will identify all participating courses by April 25, 2018.
• The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (TLA) will then contact course instructors and assist in the collection of student work (see below).
• The ILO2 and ILO3 Faculty Assessment Coordinators and Assessment Scholars will each conduct a pilot assessment project in summer 2018, prepare a report, and share their findings and recommendations with the campus in fall 2018.

General notes

• Type of work needed. Student work completed at or near graduation from any assignment, activity, or project that pertains to students’ attainment of ILO2 or ILO3 is most appropriate. Possibilities include final projects completed for upper division service learning courses required for the major, capstone projects, etc. It is possible that the same assignment can be appropriate for assessing IL02 and ILO3.
• What constitutes integrative knowledge? See the AAC&U definition and description of integrate learning,
  
• No group projects. Only individual student work can be used.
  
• Electronic & hard copies are both acceptable. Student work can be in hard copy or electronic. Electronic is preferred (see below).
• Submit ALL samples of student work from each participating course section. TLA will later randomly select a sub-sample for the pilot assessment project.
• Include section identifier. Make sure the course prefix, number, and section are identified in all communications.

Contributing student work

• Hard copies: If you have hard copies of the assignment guidelines and student work, TLA can collect the work from you, make copies, and return the originals. TLA will contact instructors to make arrangements or they can email tla@csumb.edu or call 582-4574.
• Electronic copies: Electronic copies of the assignment guidelines and student work can be emailed to tla@csumb.edu. Include your course prefix, number, and section in the email.
• Bulk downloading electronic copies from iLearn: Work students to submit to iLearn can be bulk downloaded by following the direction below.
  • From the "Grading action" drop-down menu (upper left-hand corner), select "Download all submissions"
  • Click on "View/grade all submissions"
  • Send zip file to tla@csumb.edu
  • Email tla@csumb.edu or call 582-4574 for assistance if needed

Student consent is not legally required to use their work for these assessment projects. However, for the ILO2 and ILO3 pilot assessment projects, if they want, individual faculty members can allow student to "opt out" from having their work shared for these assessment projects.

Student consent is not legally required because program- and institution-level assessment of student achievement is classified by the Federal Government as a Quality Improvement Activity (QIA) and CSUMB's Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS) conforms to the guidance provided by Office of Human Research Protections OHRP regarding QIA. The following is from the OHRP Quality Improvement Activity FAQs webpage:

"Do the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects in research (45 CFR part 46) apply to quality improvement activities conducted by one or more institutions whose purposes are limited to: (a) implementing a practice to improve the quality of patient care, and (b) collecting patient or provider data regarding the implementation of the practice for clinical, practical, or administrative purposes?

"No, such activities do not satisfy the definition of “research” under 45 CFR 46.102(d), which is “...a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge...” Therefore the HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects do not apply to such quality improvement activities, and there is no requirement under these regulations for such activities to undergo review by an IRB, or for these activities to be conducted with provider or patient informed consent."

So students are aware of how their work may be used, faculty should put in their course syllabus and/or otherwise share with students the following statement approved by the Senate Assessment Committee:

"CSUMB is committed to providing excellent and innovative curricula and educational opportunities to its students. To help us maintain quality academic offerings and to conform to institutional and professional accreditation requirements, the University and its programs regularly evaluate student work to assess student achievement of learning outcomes. CSUMB obtains, evaluates, and retains samples of student work from designated assignments in representative courses. This work includes, but is not limited to, papers, exams, creative works, recordings of oral presentations, or portfolios developed and submitted in courses or to satisfy the requirements for degree programs. Instructors will inform students which assignments will be designated for assessment purposes. Instructor and student names will not appear in any assessment results and assessment results will have no impact on student grades, instructor evaluations, or instructor employment."

The CSUMB Provost's Statement on Principles of Academic Affairs Assessment states,

"[. . . ]assessment results will never be used for any faculty, staff, or student evaluation. Further, to the extent possible, student and instructor names will be removed from all student work prior to assessment. Student and instructor names will never be published in assessment reports or in any other form that could reflect on the performance of an individual faculty member or student."

Best assessment practices consistently emphasize the importance of separating evaluation of students and faculty from assessing programs and institutional effectiveness. The purpose of program- and institution-level assessment of student achievement is to improve the ability of programs and the institution to support student learning, not to evaluate individual students or faculty. This separation is critical for ensuring the integrity of assessment processes. As noted above, names of individual faculty members and students never appear with assessment results. Further, data presented in institution-level assessment reports are always presented in aggregate without course or department identifiers.

Contact your College Faculty Associate or TLA

• College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences: Danielle Burchett
• College of Business: Christina Zhang
• College of Education: Irene Nares-Guzicki
  
• College of Health Sciences and Human Services: Lisa Leininger
  
• College of Science: Corin Slown
• University College: Deborah Burke
  
• Teaching, Learning and Assessment: Dan Shapiro