Georgia Southern University: SACS Accreditation Web Site

The institution has identified General Education Outcomes. The Off-Site Committee noted, however, that evidence of attainment of those competencies by graduates was not presented.

The published “Comprehensive Program Review Cycle” does not include specific review of the core curriculum.
The program review criteria themselves do not include review of college-level competencies for the core curriculum.
The Compliance Certification states, but does not document, that in 2003-04 all units responsible for classes within the core curriculum participated in a review of outcomes associated with these courses.
The “Regents Test” is required by the time a student has completed 45 hours measures proficiency in reading comprehension and writing, yet the general education outcomes are much more extensive (e.g., aesthetic appreciation, responsible citizenship, tolerance and understanding, etc.)
An attempt of 2004 to evaluate student learning outcomes of the core curriculum (College Assessment of Academic Proficiency exam CAAP) faltered due to lack of student response (less than 1%). Other initiatives are being planned to evaluate the core outcomes.

The On-Site Review Committee should confirm that the provision of evidence that graduates have attained general education competencies. The On-Site Review Committee would benefit from checking on the status of the Academic Proficiency exam and the proposed focus groups which are to follow.

Georgia Southern University recently updated its Comprehensive Program Review Cycle (CPR Cycle). Unfortunately, the latest General Education Assessment Timeline (updated in May 2004), which contains the review cycle from 1996 through Spring 2005, was inadvertently omitted (see endnote i for an expanded version of this timeline). The CPR Cycle has now been updated to incorporate this timeline and is presently under review by the chair of the General Education Core Review Committee.

As mandated by the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (Academic Affairs Handbook, § 2.03.05), the Comprehensive Program Review (CPR) format is not structured to specifically reference review of college-level competencies for the core curriculum, although this review is built into the report as part of the curriculum review. Under the revised Comprehensive Program Review Process and Format model now in use at Georgia Southern, curriculum review is specified under both viability and quality measures and would be expected to include review of college-level competencies for the core curriculum as applicable.

Modifications to CPR to include the General Education Core Curriculum resulted from a review conducted during 2003-04 by all units offering courses within the core curriculum to assess the outcomes associated with those courses. Appendix D (taken from the June 8, 2004, memo from Dean Kate Conway-Turner to Provost Vaughn Vandegrift) documents and summarizes the results of this review with the changes noted under the “review” column. In some cases, academic units merely reaffirmed that existing outcomes were being met. Other units modified the outcomes based upon changes that had occurred either through the normal curriculum channels or through changes resulting from this review. Some general education outcomes and the progress made toward achievement of those outcomes were added based upon the addition of a few new courses that had been previously approved through the appropriate channels. Additions are noted as underlined text. If it was determined that the course no longer met the general education goal, the relevant goal number was deleted—denoted by a slash mark. This review was presented to the Undergraduate Committee for their information on May 25, 2004. Beginning in Spring 2004, a review of syllabi of courses in the core curriculum was undertaken. Department chairs are asked to review syllabi every two years to ensure that general education outcomes continue to be addressed. This review of syllabi is partially complete and was extended into Fall 2005.

The 2003-04 review was just one of several mechanisms that the University has employed to assess general education outcomes. The University has also relied on the results of the Regents’ Test. Although the Regents’ Test only provides analysis of reading comprehension and writing, it does offer a vehicle for identifying students with possible academic support needs which allows for early intervention with these students to ensure learning outcomes are met. The need to more extensively assess the stated general education outcomes is acknowledged. The ACT College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), although initially unsuccessful, was identified as a possible enhancement to the current practice of reviewing attainment of general education outcomes through course-embedded proficiencies. The ACT CAAP process must be revisited in its entirety, as to how to convince students to participate given the time commitment involved. In the research for a tool that could augment on-campus reviews, several institutions who used ACT CAAP reported the difficulty in getting participation when the test was not mandated. Another consideration in implementing ACT CAAP is the cost to the institution; clearly, the funding has been identified as a priority, but the implementation strategies must be refined for this instrument to be useful. The initial recommendation was that the ACT CAAP would be given on a three-year cycle. The review of syllabi core courses (mentioned above) was also identified as a common path to seek a more thorough assessment of the attainability of the outcomes sought through the general education core.

The report evaluated 76 course offerings via 273 surveys (only one survey was returned concerning IDS 2210, Turning Points and Connections, so the Undergraduate Committee recommends further evaluation of that course). The Undergraduate Committee believes the survey confirms the strengths of the core curriculum; with the exception of Foreign Languages, faculty felt overall that outcomes were attained through their courses. However, outcome 5 (aesthetic appreciation) and outcome 7-D (familiarity with major issues) rated low attainment.

All University faculty were notified via email from the chair of the Undergraduate Committee concerning the availability of this report and its location on the University’s web site. Furthermore, the report in its entirety was included in the June 24, 2002, Librarian’s Report as well as distributed in hard copy to all Senators present. Recommendations of the report were as follows (p. 26 of report):

In general, we believe that the survey supports the strengths of the core curriculum and the University’s General Education Outcomes. In addition, we believe that the survey served, serendipitously, to better acquaint faculty with these outcomes, resulted in the updating of the table of Core Curriculum Courses and General Education Outcomes, and led to the publication of the core outcomes on the Georgia Southern University web site for the benefit of both faculty and students. However, a specific review of the appropriateness of outcomes in relationship to specific courses may be indicated (emphasis added). In particular, a review of core classes in the College of Science and Technology and how they relate to the General Education Outcomes might be appropriate. In addition, it may be appropriate to give further consideration to the question of whether outcomes 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C (oral communication and writing across the curriculum) are being adequately achieved through core courses. Outcomes 1-A and 1-B had mean responses of 5.7 and 5.3, relatively low scores. Finally, the adequacy of courses and/or other instructional strategies designed to address the introduction to modern technology (outcome 7-D) and information literacy (outcome 2-C, with a total mean score of 4.9) should be further evaluated.

Feedback from this survey was used to update the General Education assessment timeline.

Source: Appendix C of the June 8, 2004, memo from Dean Kate Conway-Turner to Provost Vaughn Vandegrift.

Standard Number 3.5.1: The institution identifies college-level competencies within the general education core and provides evidence that graduates have attained those competencies.