Compliance Status

Louisiana State University and A&M College is in compliance with this principle.

Narrative

Overview: The LSU Graduating Student Profile and the General Education Component of Undergraduate Education

Louisiana State University and A&M College (LSU) identifies six general education competencies and measures their attainment through well-established processes.  The set of University Learning Competencies constitutes the intended general Graduating Student Profile of students earning baccalaureate degrees.  The components of the profile are dynamic and under continuous formal scrutiny to ensure that the set of competencies and corresponding baccalaureate program and course content are commensurate with the university’s commitment to produce graduates whose skills, abilities, and values prepare them for successful integration into the workforce and the world community.  The conviction of the LSU Faculty Council (i.e., of the faculty as a whole) is that students’ development of the profile is necessarily a longitudinal one that spans the entire process through which the undergraduate degree is earned.  LSU students begin development of the profile through study in the General Education Component of Undergraduate Education, which involves 39 credit hours of courses from six specified areas of learning.  The baccalaureate learning process advances from courses taken to satisfy the general education requirement to study in upper-division elective courses and in courses in a student’s major field of study.  The Graduating Student Profile is the active result of the faculty’s determination that LSU graduates must be conversant with the fundamental questions confronting humankind in the twenty-first century; be inclined toward engagement in solutions to issues and problems confronting local, national, and global communities; be capable of research-based inquiries that are informed by orientations and perspectives from the humanities and the social sciences and that employ scientific and mathematical models and methods and technology; and be able effectively to communicate informed perspectives and findings through multiple media.  In the General Education Component, students take six hours of English composition, three hours of arts, six hours of analytical reasoning, nine hours of humanities, nine hours of natural sciences, and six hours of social sciences.  Courses are included in the component after careful criteria-based evaluation by the LSU Faculty Senate General Education Committee (FSGEC) and are reapproved on a five-year cycle. 

The University Learning Competencies

1. An LSU graduate will demonstrate effective communication of complex knowledge and ideas through written, oral, visual, and technological media;
2. An LSU graduate will demonstrate understanding of the historical, cultural, and philosophical complexity that supports sophisticated discourse;
3. An LSU graduate will be able to conduct research-based inquiry, including articulation of complex disciplinary and interdisciplinary problems, effective evaluation and analysis of primary and secondary sources, and integration of relevant information into original discourse;
4. An LSU graduate will be able to employ scientific and mathematical methods and technology in the resolution of laboratory and real-world problems;
5. An LSU graduate will demonstrate an understanding of the informing factors of global interdependence, including economic forces, political dynamics, and cultural and linguistic difference; and
6. An LSU graduate will have the knowledge, skills, and disposition that attest to a commitment and ability to recognize and to participate in processes that improve the civic life of communities [1].

Administrative and General Evaluation Processes

Table 1 lists the primary elements of internal processes for assessment in the General Education Component by the Faculty Senate General Education Committee (FSGEC) and the teaching faculty.

Internal Process I:  The Committee’s Ongoing General Evaluation of the Component

Broad History of General Education at LSU

A formal concept of general education at Louisiana State University began in 1987 after three years of study by the Faculty Senate. It was initiated as the General Education Requirement, and it had, for a rhetorical frame, nine broad learning goals that were first assessed programmatically in a longitudinal panel study from 1996 to 2000.  At that time, general education courses served the needs of the offering disciplines for broad introductory courses, while addressing indirectly or as a matter of course the general education area in which they resided.   Although the requirements offered the student a broad range of course options, there was a distinct lack of intentionality in the direction of programmatic learning outcomes or competencies in the early construct. A four-year longitudinal panel study had shown by 2000 that general education, while robust in options for the student, was viewed primarily by students as a negative hurdle to be overcome in order to graduate. Faculty, moreover, perceived no programmatic aspect to the concept, regarding it as a set of course requirements designed to expose students to the manner in which learning occurs in the six domain areas of general education.  By 2004, the disclosures of the panel study notwithstanding, the General Education Requirement still conformed to the same conceptual approach with which it had begun [2].

Restatement of Area Criteria and Student Learning Outcomes

Since 2005, the FSGEC has practiced ongoing assessment, reflection, and revision of the general education requirement, as detailed below under the section titled “Committee’s Longitudinal Evaluation of the General Education Component.”  Early in this time period (2005-2007), the committee established more than 30 learning outcomes across the six areas of general education study; additionally, the committee, working with faculty members from each of the six areas, established area criteria to which any general education course listed in the area would have to comply. Thus, these criteria grew out of the professional perspectives of faculty members responsible for teaching and learning in disciplines that fall under a specific area. Faculty members from the Department of Psychology, for instance, participated in criteria development for the social sciences area, to which five of the general education learning outcomes were linked. The theory underlying this design is that courses in the area, by addressing the general area learning criteria, would necessarily be addressing some of the linked learning outcomes.  For a course in the social sciences, addressing three of the five outcomes was required for listing as a general education course.  During 2008-2009, when the committee undertook the arduous process of fully reviewing the suitability of the more than 300 existing courses for continued listing as general education, the FSGEC determined that a significant number of the prescribed learning outcomes were not being addressed in general education courses, sparking a reconsideration of the rationale informing the large set of outcomes [3].  As a result of this reconsideration, the set of general education learning outcomes was both shortened and strengthened, as listed above under “The University Learning Competencies.” It is important to note at this point, however, that the college-level area learning criteria developed by LSU faculty members in 2007 have remained fundamentally the same.

General Education Area Requirements:  The Criteria for College-Level Learning

English Composition Area

Course Criteria: General Education courses in the English composition area are centered on writing pedagogy and developing basic skills in written communication. In these courses students will demonstrate ability in written analysis and synthesis; undertake writing as a recursive process that develops and transforms thought; conduct basic research and use it effectively in written works;  interpret, evaluate, integrate, and document information gathered from print and online sources; understand a research assignment as a series of tasks that include finding, analyzing, and synthesizing information from primary and secondary sources; integrate information from sources into writing, and document this information appropriately; respond appropriately to different kinds of rhetorical situations, with a focus on purpose and the needs of various audiences, using appropriate genre conventions;  adopt appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality;  apply knowledge of structure and organization, paragraphing, and mechanics.   

Humanities Area

Course Criteria:  Every disciplinary course designed to fulfill the humanities requirements for General Education must impart an understanding of how knowledge is acquired in the discipline.  General Education courses in the humanities area should give students an understanding of their own cultural traditions and those of other cultures, locally, nationally, and internationally; lead students to reflect on fundamental questions that human beings have faced, whatever their diverse backgrounds and cultures; introduce students to the humanities disciplines, such as literature, history, philosophy, religious studies, and language.  In literature, students will demonstrate ability to read a variety of texts—comprehending and interpreting both literal and figurative meaning, and paraphrasing passages accurately; identify larger themes, structures, literary devices, and rhetorical patterns in texts; and place and interpret texts within a discursive tradition and within broader cultural and historical contexts.  In history, students will demonstrate ability to make sense of the past by reconstructing causal patterns, identifying trends, and making informed comparisons between different historical cases; and grasp the influence of varied and complex historical factors on the lives of individuals in societies.  In philosophy and in religion, students will demonstrate ability to understand positions which humans have developed on fundamental issues like truth, knowledge, goodness and values, beauty, and spirituality and to arrive at an informed position regarding oneself.

Social Sciences Area

Course Criteria: Courses in the social sciences address in a sustained way such criteria as the nature of the human person; the different levels of association, from friends and family, to economy and polity, even to civilizations of global significance; the patterns by which societies organize how people relate not only to each other but to the world around them, ranging from relations to their physical environment to relations to the divine; the diversity of cultures, across time and space, as well as universal social characteristics and global networks;  approaches to social analysis, from historical inquiry, to data analysis, to formal modeling; and patterns of imagined best societies as well as discoveries of unintended consequences.

Arts Area

Course Criteria:  In these courses, students acquire factual information about the art under consideration, understand concepts and methods, develop an appreciation of the world of the artist, and understand the arts as modes of expression, as sciences requiring technical mastery, and as visual and/or aural languages.  Arts area courses expose students to broad themes and underlying concepts; include a study of acknowledged masters and masterworks in order that the student may learn from these masters and catch a glimpse of greatness from an artistic perspective; encourage an understanding of historical, literary, visual, performance, and aesthetic paradigms, as the arts are a reflection and refraction of the culture from which they come; and allow for the recognition and appreciation of something beyond and larger than the student, a skill that encompasses and transcends all disciplines of inquiry.

Analytical Reasoning Area

Course Criteria: In analytical reasoning courses students gain an understanding of the reasoning processes used in drawing conclusions, and competence in using these processes.  Aspects of analytical reasoning include understanding and applying algebra, probability and statistics, geometry, calculus, or logic for computational problems in theoretical and real world situations; interpreting, making appropriate judgments, and drawing logical conclusions based on quantitative information; translating problem situations into symbolic representations and use those representations to solve problems; and analyzing data and using probability and statistical methods to make inferences about real world situations.  Courses meeting analytical reasoning criteria will typically address problem solving by employing one or more of the following: elementary logic, formal languages, statistical reasoning, probability, and algebraic or geometric reasoning.

Natural Sciences Area

Course Criteria: In these courses students learn the role of the scientific method in the establishment of theories and laws of nature, and the uses of observation, deductive reasoning, and experimentation are used to draw conclusions based on these theories and laws. Each course emphasizes the acquisition of factual scientific information in a specific discipline and reinforces development of an appreciation of the natural world, an understanding of how scientists reason and draw conclusions, and the use of media to interpret scientific material. Courses in the life sciences involve study of criteria such as the cellular organization of life; the molecular basis of heredity and genetics; biological evolution; the interdependence of organisms; the matter, energy, and organization in living systems; and the behavior of organisms.  Courses in the physical sciences involve the study of criteria such as the structure and properties of atoms and matter; chemical reactions, motions and forces; the conservation of energy and the increase in disorder; the interactions of energy and matter; energy in the earth system, geochemical cycles, and the origin and evolution of the universe and the earth system [1].

The Current Set of University Learning Competencies and Beyond

The current set of University Learning Competencies grew out of the Faculty Senate General Education Committee’s careful consideration of current national research into the role of a liberal education in effective undergraduate study.  The process included the committee’s 2009-2010 study of current practices in general education in all levels of the academy for the purpose of describing and implementing for LSU students a format that, while maintaining historical characteristics of the LSU general education requirement that are representative of best practices, ensured inclusion of elements of effective general education study as demonstrated by the impressive body of research into this pedagogical problem. Particularly influential in the 2009-2010 committee study was the LEAP (Liberal Education and America’s Promise) initiative’s publication College Learning for the New Global Century, along with expository information on the LEAP Website [4].  The most tangible result of this process are the designation of the set of University Learning Competencies and the corresponding implementation of requirements for ensuring that general education courses, through careful adherence to the area criteria described above, are addressing one or more of the competencies.  Assessment of LSU students’ achievement of them is ongoing, as described below under “Measures of Competency Achievement,” along with consideration of what competencies should comprise the Graduating Student Profile.  Through occasional reports from the LSU Office of Assessment and Evaluation the committee stays abreast of research made available by LEAP and by such prominent advocacy and research groups as National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment and Lumina Foundation.  The primary strategy for ensuring the college-level substance of the competencies and for determining students’ attainment of them by graduation is the use of the AACU-VALUE rubrics, adapted to fit the perspectives of the LSU Faculty Council, in an assessment of portfolios of a random sample of course work of graduating seniors (as fully described below under “Senior-Level Assessment.”  The University Learning Competencies took effect with the 2010-2011 academic year, along with the new perception of general education as a “component” of undergraduate education.  This shift (first published in the 2011-12 General Catalog) was accompanied by implementation of a five-year cycle for renewing all general education courses  In 2011 the committee also piloted a direct rubric-based portfolio assessment of a random sample of graduating seniors, described below under “Senior Portfolio Assessment.”  

The transition to the review of graduating senior portfolios is necessitating a revamping of procedures with respect to individual general education course proposals/ renewals and to academic unit reporting on the effectiveness of general education courses. These changes are being clarified and implemented in fall 2013. As the evolution of general education at LSU continues, the FSGEC will be researching the prospect for implementing an academic portfolio depository for all students to utilize from the point at which they enter the institution through graduation. The portfolio framework will be based on the University Learning Competencies to help further focus students’ understanding of how the competencies provide a heuristic foundation for their overall education [5].

Internal Process II:  The Five-Year Course Suitability Review

Each course in the General Education Component undergoes a formal review by the FSGEC on a five-year cycle [6]. During this review, the department in which the course resides presents to the committee a completed “Proposal to List a Course as General Education” form for the general education area to which the course corresponds (English composition, analytical reasoning, arts, humanities, natural sciences, or social sciences) [7].  In other words, departments must provide evidence that the course continues effectively to address the criteria for listing in the General Education Component, as denoted in the Proposal to List a Course as General Education.  The Office of Assessment and Evaluation pre-evaluates submitted proposals and meets with the proposing faculty members to address problems before the proposal goes to the committee for final review.  In effect, the committee reviews all general education courses on the five-year rotation to ensure that the intentionality of addressing area criteria and University Learning Competencies is sound in the presentation of the course to students. The review has resulted in the action step that the course syllabus and course outline for all sections of general education being offered in a given semester will be posted, beginning in spring semester 2014.   Another important new action is the requirement for an annual departmental report on the efficacy of general education courses with respect to students’ development of University Learning Competencies.  This evidence, considered in total, offers the General Education Committee appropriate evidence to make an informed determination regarding the continuation of a course in the general education component of undergraduate education [5].

Internal Process III:  The Proposal to List a Course as General Education

Departments may propose a course for listing in the General Education Component by completing the online “Proposal to List a Course as General Education,” along with supporting documentation, as follows: 

(1) A syllabus that includes a course description as it appears in the current catalog, or, in the case of a new course, as approved for the catalog; the titles of texts, laboratory manuals, or other course materials, including a list of principal reference readings; a statement declaring that this course is a general education course in the selected area (e.g., analytical reasoning) and that, as such, material in the course addresses students’ achievement of the specific learning criteria associated with the area; a description of assignments, exams, and other measures used to assign course grades; and an outline of course subject matter.

(2) An explanation of why the course belongs in the General Education Component and why it should be listed in the selected area, including an explicit description of how the course meets the specific learning criteria associated with the area.

(3) A statement regarding the University Competency to be addressed in the proposed course, including a description of some of the major pedagogies through which the course will address the general education competency. 

(4) A description of the valid and reliable assessment method through which the department will provide direct evidence of the extent that students are making progress toward achievement of the general education learning competency [7].

Internal Process IV: Annual General Education Course Review by Teaching Faculty

All general education courses are required to provide an annual report on student learning in relation to the University Learning Competencies addressed in the course during the academic year.  These reports include teaching faculty members’ interpretation of in-course assessment results in relation to the competencies.  The reports are attached to the General Education Template in the TaskStream Administrative Management System.  Examples of learning outcomes reports for each of the six areas are included in pdf format in the following end notes [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].

Measures of Competency Achievement

The FSGEC has implemented a set of measures that provides both direct assessment data and perceptual information related to students’ attainment of the competencies (Table 2).

Measure I:  Senior Portfolio Assessment

Early in spring semester 2011, a randomly chosen sample of 100 graduating seniors were invited to participate in a rubric evaluation of their achievement of two of the University Learning Competencies.  Students were asked to submit a senior-level artifact to be assessed by a trio of faculty members who would interview them and then complete a rubric adapted from the AACU-VALUE rubrics for each of the competencies.  Working with the Office of Assessment and Evaluation to implement the assessment and review the data, the committee determined that this approach, though offering important insights into students’ achievement of the two competencies, was too skewed in the direction of high-end graduates to generalize to the entire population of graduating seniors [14] [15] [16].  The committee addressed this problem in the two most recent general education assessments (for academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13) by soliciting artifacts from the faculty members teaching graduating seniors.  The extent to which graduating seniors have attained the University Learning Competencies is quantified through a rigorous rubric-based assessment of the artifacts submitted in a random sample of graduating student academic portfolios. LSU faculty members comprise the reviewing teams of two.  The General Education Committee developed the rubrics with a six-point scoring scale in three range areas. The ranges are Not Met (1-2), Met (3-4), and Exceeded (5-6). A score of 3 represents minimal competency [17] [18].   This scoring system corresponds to the expectations of student attainment of the University Learning Competencies.   

The general education assessment process begins with the collection of a random sample of graduating student academic portfolios. In preparation, the complete assessment team meets to standardize the scoring for varied artifacts of the portfolios. Next, individual student portfolios are reviewed by at least two assessment committee members who separately submit rubric scores for the learning competencies being assessed. When these assessments vary by more than one point, another assessor reviews the portfolio to reconcile the score. Data obtained from this assessment protocol directly speaks to the level of actual attainment of the LSU Learning Competencies at the time of graduation by a student. Deriving the extent to which the course of study has impacted the student attainment of the LSU Learning Outcomes is completed through an analysis of the data received from the assessment of graduating student portfolios cross-referenced to data from tow standardized commercial assessments, the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Collegiate Learning Assessment.  The spring 2012 assessment was conducted for all six University Learning Competencies, and the spring 2013 assessment focused on the competencies pertaining to communication and to research-based inquiry (Tables 3, 4). A more robust sample for the 2013 assessment probably accounts for the higher scores for the two competencies assessed during this year [19] [20].  The findings and the committee’s interpretation are discussed further in the section below titled “LSU Faculty View of the Current Status of the General Education Component.”

Measure II:  Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)

The CLA provides normed scores on students’ completion of performance-based tasks that correspond to some of the LSU University Learning Competencies.  The critical thinking (CT), analytical reasoning (AR) and problem solving (PS) tasks, for example, directly relate to a students’ ability to conduct “research-based inquiry,” to use scientific and mathematical methods in the resolution of complex problems, and to comprehend dynamic factors that affect the “global interdependence” of humanity.  The written communication task (WC) similarly corresponds to students’ ability to communicate “complex knowledge and ideas.”  In a cross-sectional study conducted in 2008, LSU first-year students scored at an almost identical rate to their Carnegie institution peers on all four tasks (CT, AR, PS, WC). In contrast to this, LSU seniors’ scores were grouped in the ninth decile, thus indicating that they made higher gains in relation to the LSU first-year student scores than seniors at 80% of other four-year institutions.  That a similar gain in value-added scores was not replicated in a repetition of the cross-sectional study during 2011 is not concerning to the committee since an increase in first-year student admission requirements significantly differentiated the 2008 first-year students from those in the 2011 group.   More importantly, the gains made by LSU seniors continued to be close to the Carnegie mean of seniors at peer institutions. This is to say that LSU seniors’ scores in all four performance areas of the CLA indicated that earning an LSU baccalaureate degree adds value at approximately the same rate as value is added by an education earned at peer institutions [21].

Measure III:  In-Course Assessments

The FSGEC currently requires the teaching faculty of a departmental general education course taught during the academic year to assess students’ learning in the direction of the University Competency associated with the course and to interpret and report the results of the assessment.  Excerpts from recent assessment reports are presented below.

University Competency:  LSU graduates will demonstrate effective communication of complex knowledge and ideas through written, oral, visual, and technological media. 

 At the end of each semester in which English 1001 (“Introduction to analytical writing and research-based inquiry”) and English 2000 (“Practice in argument writing and research-based inquiry”) are taught, faculty in the University Writing Program (UWP) employ a rubric evaluation method to determine the extent to which students completing the courses are achieving competence in the expressed criteria for the general education English composition area [22].  The following documentation for the 2012 Assessment Cycle show a summary of findings and the action steps the faculty chose to take on the basis of the findings.

English 1001

Summary of Findings: The total scores on this assessment were two through ten. A score of eight through ten indicated performance is exceeding expectations. A score of five through seven indicated performance meeting expectations, and a score of two through four indicated performance below expectations. The scores of eight ten equaled 6.25%; scores of five through seven equaled 49.04%; scores of two through four equaled 44.71%. The confidence level was 95%, and the margin of error was close to 4%.  416 essays were assessed overall.

Reflections and Action Plan: At the end of the assessment, the Director of UWP worked with the other two directors to formulate workshops that addressed further needs in the curriculum, particularly in terms of research. It was clear from the essays that students struggled with understanding how to evaluate sources and how to cite correctly. A workshop was held in tandem with library personnel. In addition, at the beginning of fall 2012, further attention will be drawn to research, analysis, and thesis statements in the Practicum for twenty new teachers and in first-day meetings and other workshops. Mentoring of teachers and remediation of teaching will be increased as well. In addition, during this year and  to continue into future years, a Community Moodle for English 1001 has been created to share best practices in teaching for English 1001 [23].

English 2000

Summary of Findings: The total scores on this assessment were two through ten. A score of eight through ten indicated performance is exceeding expectations. A score of five through seven indicated performance meeting expectations and a score of two through four indicated performance below expectations. The scores of eight-ten equaled 15.16%; scores of five through seven equaled 56.34%; scores of two through four equaled 28.51%. The confidence level was 95% and the margin of error was close to 4%.  442 essays were assessed overall.

Reflections and Action Plan:  At the end of the assessment, the Directors of UWP shared the assessment results with UWP faculty in a half-day retreat. Next year we will formulate workshops  that address further needs in the curriculum, particularly in terms of thesis statements. It was clear from the essays that students understood somewhat better how to evaluate sources and how to cite correctly. In addition, at the beginning of fall 2012, further attention will be drawn to research, thesis statements, and organization in the Practicum for twenty new teachers and in first-day meetings and other workshops. Mentoring of teachers and remediation of teaching will be increased as well. In addition, we will feature more workshops and resources for teaching a researched argument [24].

University Competency:  An LSU graduate will demonstrate understanding of the historical, cultural, and philosophical complexity that supports sophisticated discourse.

English 2148

Summary of Findings:  The percentages of students who attained competence by meeting or exceeding expectations under Rubrics A, B, and C, respectively, were 94%, 86% and 86%. So ENGL 2148 successfully helped students attain competence under each of the three rubrics employed by the English Department.  Under all three rubrics, a greater percentage of students met, than exceeded, expectations, so the Acceptable Target Achievement is Met.

Recommendations: Urge instructors to work with students to improve their ability to interpret texts in historical context, and to write clearly and effectively about these interpretations.

Reflections/Notes:  Comparing competence under different rubrics, it is clear that more students emerged competent at accurately reading complex material (94%) than at reading in historical and cultural context or writing clearly. The challenges posed by historically distant material may account for some of the difficulty in attaining competence under Rubric B in ENGL 2148, interpreting Shakespeare’s plays in historical and cultural context.  The English Department is heartened by the fact that the number of students meeting or exceeding expectations under Rubric C is high – and in fact equal to the percentage under Rubric B. When the Department redesigned its composition sequence so that the second composition course is taught in the spring of the second year, rather than spring of the first year, there was concern that students would not develop writing skills at the level required in time for their General Education courses. And, indeed, General Education assessment results of previous years seemed to bear this out, with competence under the third rubric lagging significantly behind the other two. This does not seem to be the case for ENGL 2148 in 2011-12 [25].

University Competency:  LSU graduates will conduct research-based inquiry, including articulation of complex disciplinary and interdisciplinary problems, effective evaluation and analysis of primary and secondary sources, and integration of relevant information into original discourse.

Art History 2401 – (2012 Cycle)

Recommendations:   I assigned my students a multi- step research project worth a total of 25% of their grade. They received 5% for submitting a proposal with a preliminary bibliography, 5% for an outline with an annotated bibliography, 5% for a rough draft on which feedback was given, and 10% was for the final draft. Note, if students were satisfied with their rough draft grade, they did not have to rewrite the paper but they did need to submit it as a final, clean draft.  Students were asked to select an object from the Near East or Egypt from their textbook or books on reserve, track down publications for that object, and synthesize an analysis of the object with information that they found through research with information they learned in class.  This system worked well for the students who chose to follow instructions and take the research project seriously. Students who did not want to stick to the schedule or wanted to do research that was not approved usually did not fare too well because they did not accrue points for that component or turned in a final draft that had not received feedback.

Reflections/Notes:  It was extraordinarily difficult to direct 35+ research papers and achieve uniform results, especially since the library holdings are not sufficient to conduct research in these areas. In spite of this, many students came to me at the end of the semester that they had benefited from the research project. This course has not been taught since fall 2011 and is not on the schedule for Spring 2013. If I teach this course in the future I will consider restructuring the course so that the method of assessment is a better reflection of what the students learn about the art history of the Ancient Near East and Egypt [26].

University Competency:  LSU graduates will employ scientific and mathematical methods and technology in the resolution of laboratory and real-world problems.

Mathematics 1550—Introduction to Calculus (2012 Cycle)

Results and Interpretation:

All of the 69 Final Exam questions that were analyzed related to Objective 1:  Understanding and applying algebra, geometry, and calculus for computational problems in theoretical and real world situations.  On these questions, the percentage of the credit that was earned by students was 65.2%.  In our proposal to list 1550 as a General Education course,  we stated that a student should answer correctly at least 65% of such questions to achieve this objective.  This outcome meets the department’s stated goal.

35 of the 69 questions (50.7%) related to Objective 2:  Interpreting, making appropriate judgments, and drawing logical conclusions based on quantitative information.  On these questions, the percentage of credit earned by students was 70.77%.  In our proposal, we stated that a student should answer correctly at least 65% of such questions to achieve this objective.  This outcome is considered good.

26 of the 69 questions (37.7%) related to Objective 3:  Translating problem situations into symbolic representations and using those representations to solve problems.  On these questions, the percentage of credit earned by the students was 61.3%.  In our proposal, we stated that a student should answer correctly at least 60% of such questions to achieve this objective.  This outcome meets the department’s stated goal [27].

University Competency: An LSU graduate will demonstrate an understanding of the informing factors of global interdependence, including economic forces, political dynamics, and cultural and linguistic difference.

Political Science 1001-- (2012 Cycle)

Summary of Findings: Objective 1: The average correct response for the twenty factual knowledge questions was 77.47%, well above the threshold for meeting or exceeding expectations. Moreover, this threshold of meeting or exceeding expectations (70-100%) was achieved on 15 of the 20 questions.

Recommendations: As a result of this assessment, the instructor has concluded that more attention needs to be paid to instruction in the reading and interpreting of narratives and texts. Students do not appear to be sufficiently adept at interpreting and analyzing the implications of the materials they read; nor do they appear to be reading materials that are not discussed in class. In the future, the instructor will institute a variety of reading exercises, most especially for those readings assigned but not discussed in class.

Reflections/Notes: The instructor of the course was pleased with this finding and felt that it indicated an encouraging response to one of the objectives of the course. One disturbing trend, however, was that the poor scores on 5 of the 20 questions revealed insufficient factual knowledge of reading materials assigned in the class [28].

Agricultural Economics 2003 (2012 Cycle)

Course Learning Goal:  Demonstrate an understanding of the levels of association ranging from friends to family to civilizations of global significance.

Analysis:  Students had greater difficulty with this material, with correct answers ranging from 50% to 77%.  The question with 77% correct answers dealt with comparative versus absolute advantage – students generally understood the theory of comparative advantage.  The problems seem to be in taking the theory and applying it to real-world policies.  Understanding the impacts of demand expansion programs (54% correct), target price programs (53% correct), the two-price plan program (50% correct), and the impact of a change to free trade (56% correct) suggest more time needs to be devoted during the last several weeks of the class in applying the theory to real-world policy problems. 

Action:  Effort will be made to expend more effort to speed up the introductory material during the first days of class so that more time can be spent on agricultural policy during the last couple of weeks. It is of interest that the policy portions were moved through faster using PowerPoint slides versus earlier portions, which were on the board.  This will be consideration, with more chalkboard time and fewer PowerPoints [29]. 

Measure IV:  National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

In 2003 and 2004, LSU participated in early administrations of the National Survey of Student Engagement, a qualitative measure of the extent to which the campus environment and conditions are conducive to high levels of student learning.  Since 2007 LSU has participated every other year.  The survey is sent to all LSU first-year students and seniors during spring semester.  A number of items clustered under the NSSE benchmarks for Active and Collaborative Learning and Enriching Educational Experiences correspond to one or more of the University Learning Competencies.  

University Competency:  LSU graduates will demonstrate effective communication of complex knowledge and ideas through written, oral, visual, and technological media.

This competency correlates most closely with items 3d, 11c, 11d, and 11g on the instrument.   Item 3d asks students how many papers of medium length (5-19 pages) they had written in their college careers. For the three administrations combined during the investigated assessment cycle (2007-2011), an average of 38% of LSU seniors had written five or more papers of this length, a number that compares favorably to the amount of writing done by seniors at our Carnegie peer institutions. Items 11d and 11e ask students how much they were required to speak (11d) and write (11e) clearly and effectively in their classes.  LSU seniors responded “quite a bit” or “very much” at the combined rate of 78% for writing and of 71% for speaking in 2011.  Both of these results compared favorably to the mean for Carnegie peers (73% and 77% respectively).  Finally, item 11g asked students for the amount of time they spent using computers and technology in their college careers.  The 78% combined response rate of LSU seniors for the “quite a bit” or “very much” in 2011 was within 1% of the response rate of Carnegie peers in both cases.  

University Competency:  LSU graduates will conduct research-based inquiry, including articulation of complex disciplinary and interdisciplinary problems, effective evaluation and analysis of primary and secondary sources, and integration of relevant information into original discourse.

Among the NSSE items that correlate with this competency are 1d and 2c.  1d asks students how frequently they were asked to work on a paper or project that integrated various sources, and 2c asks them how much their course work required synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences. In 2011 LSU first-year students answered 1d with “often” or “very often” 60% of the time, and seniors did so 79% of the time. Comparatively, LSU students lag behind Carnegie peers (72% of first-year students and 83% of seniors) in responses to this item, though the margin of difference grows smaller by the senior year. For 2c, LSU first-year students in 2011 responded “quite a bit” or “very much” a combined 64% of the time, and seniors responded “quite a bit” or “very much” 75% of the time.  Though LSU first-year students indicated seven percentage points less than peer students, LSU seniors’ score matched the Carnegie mean of 75%.  Further, for the item (1i) that asks the students how frequently they had to combine items learned in different courses in order to complete assignments, LSU seniors responded “often” or “very often” an average of 71% of the time, virtually matching the 72% mean score of seniors.  

University Competency:  LSU graduates will employ scientific and mathematical methods and technology in the resolution of laboratory and real-world problems.

NSSE item 2e asks students to report on how much they were challenged to apply theories or concepts to practical problems or new situations. LSU first-year students responded “quite a bit” or “very much” a combined 76% of the time, and seniors answered the same way 72% of the time in 2011.  These results show an increase in the first-year student response from 2007; however, LSU seniors’ score is 7% lower than the mean score for seniors at Carnegie peer institutions.  Even so, for item 11f, which asked students how often they were asked to analyze quantitative problems, in 2011 both first-year students and seniors from LSU responded in almost identical fashion to their Carnegie peers (LSU first-year students 76% and LSU seniors 75% vs. Carnegie peers first-year students 75% and Carnegie peers seniors 76%) combined score for  “quite a bit” or “very much,” respectively.

University Competency:  LSU graduates will have the knowledge, skills, and disposition that attest to a commitment and ability to recognize and to participate in processes that improve the civic life of communities.

NSSE items that are germane to this competency are 1k, 7b, and 11o. 1k asked the students if they had participated in community-based projects, such as service-learning. In 2007, only 16% of LSU seniors responded “often” or “very often.” By 2011, however, 24% of LSU seniors responded in this way. This dramatic increase is owed to increased efforts to incorporate service-learning classes into the curriculum during that time span. That 24% outshines the 15% of seniors at Carnegie peer institutions who answered this item in the same way. That an impetus toward community engagement is a strong factor in LSU baccalaureate study is further supported by item 7b, which asks students if they plan to do or have done volunteer work in their community. In 2011, 69% of LSU seniors responded that they had done so, and another 10% said they still planned to do so. This is almost identical to the level of response by seniors attending our Carnegie peers. On item 11o, LSU seniors matched their Carnegie peers in answering that during their college career they had contributed to the welfare of their community “quite a bit” or “very much” (LSU 46% CP 47%) [30] [31] [32].    

LSU Faculty View of Current Status of the General Education Component

This certificate describes the current integrated pedagogical approach to LSU students’ attainment of the Graduating Student Profile. It has become an intentional one in which students begin longitudinal development of prescribed learning competencies in designated courses at the freshman and sophomore levels, then continue their development in upper-division elective and disciplinary courses.  Deriving the extent to which this generalized course of study has impacted the student attainment of the competencies involves an analysis of data received from the rubric-based assessment of graduating student portfolios cross-referenced with data from the summative assessment of student learning at the degree program level, from annual general education course reports, from the Collegiate Learning Assessment, and, less directly, from the National Survey of Student Engagement. 

Item 11a on the NSSE asks students to respond to the following statement:  “I am acquiring a broad general education.”  The 83% of LSU first-year students and 84% of seniors who responded positively to this statement in the 2011 administration tracks the general response rate of students at LSU’s Carnegie peer institutions [32].   If one substitutes “effective” for “broad,” and takes this item for an indication, albeit indirect, of the positive impact of the LSU General Education Component, one must ask also whether the triangulated data from the five established measures suggest to LSU faculty that graduating students, for the most part, are achieving the University Learning Competencies.  To be sure, the mean scores for all six competencies in the 2012 senior portfolio assessment demonstrate the faculty’s determination, based on the review of artifacts collected during students’ last semester of study that most graduates can perform the tasks indicated in the competency statements and in the language of the rubrics at a minimum level of competency.  But these scores raise important questions for further study. For one thing, none of them approaches a mean score of 4, which, qualitatively speaking, would represent not high competency but, rather, the high end of basic competency.  And while the scores were better on the two competencies measured in the 2013 portfolio assessment, which involved a more robust sample than that of 2012—3.70 for communication and 3.71 for research-based inquiry—they still do not indicate a general level of competency that is commensurate with the higher level of competency embodied in the faculty’s idea of the Graduating Student Profile.  A second question pertains to the subset of graduates for whom a score of 2 or less was assigned for one or more competencies. What manner of pedagogical changes should be implemented to address this very significant concern?  The good news in this regard is that the LSU faculty, through this assessment of student learning by the General Education Committee, has a valid basis for highly important dialogue about student learning in the direction of competencies they have embraced as their embodiment of the effectively educated LSU graduate.  Additional good news resides in the relatively high scores of LSU seniors on CLA performance-based tasks and in the rigor of advanced-level study at LSU as indicated by seniors’ responses to items on the NSSE. 

Indeed, in the last five-to-seven years, the perspective of the FSGEC has transitioned from a regard of general education as a discrete set of requirements, aimed at providing students with exposure to the broad traditional areas of learning, to a regard for general education as an integral component of the process of earning an undergraduate degree, informed by the development of a set of learning competencies that are essential to the effectively functioning college graduate.  Assessment of student learning has become institutionalized from the level of first-year and sophomore general education courses to the formal review of graduating seniors.  The committee has developed a practical level of sophistication in the use of assessment information and of learning outcomes data. General education assessment in 2012 showing the relatively poorer performance of graduating students on the research-based inquiry competency informed the decision of the QEP team to enhance the learning environment for undergraduate research.  Analysis of variance studies suggesting additional study that could lead to pedagogical changes in the interest of improved student performance are being considered by the committee, one of which suggests that  students in the College of Science are achieving the communication and the research-based inquiry competencies at a higher level than students in other colleges [33] [34] [35]. Among the important next steps for the committee are, in the category of competencies assessment, the implementation of a portfolio assessment of freshmen that will provide a comparative aspect to the ongoing senior portfolio assessment and, in the category of general program evaluation, additions to the set of University Learning Competencies that will provide still greater focus to the profile of students earning an LSU baccalaureate degree.  In sum, assessment of general education competencies at LSU is past the inchoate stage, but is still young and evolving, as questions are on the agenda for first meeting of the committee in fall 2013 demonstrate [36].