UW-Madison > General Education Requirements

Information for: [ Current Students ] [ Transfer Students ] [ Faculty & Staff ] [ Assessment ] [Essential Learning Outcomes and LEAP ]
Key Links: [ Home ] [ Gen Ed Course Lists ] [ Search ] [ Site Map ] [ Update ]

Assessment of the UW-Madison Undergraduate General Education Requirements

Since 2003, the University General Education Committee (UGEC) has used a formally adopted long-range Assessment Plan to guide campus-level efforts to understand the impact and efficacy of the General Education Requirements. That assessment plan is reviewed annually, when the UGEC submits each year's proposal for assessment funding to support specific projects to be pursued within that long-range plan. The funding request may also include requests to support other projects related to general education as new needs are identified.

2008 General Education Assessment Plan is noteworthy for two reasons: it provides a comprehensive history of undergraduate general education as practiced at UW-Madison, and it looks ahead to the future of the program which draws explicit connections between the requirements and the "Essential Learning Outcomes" articulated in the AAC&U project, "Liberal Education and America's Promise".

As part of the request for funding, the UGEC submits an annual activity report to the University Assessment Council, The council also submits an annual report to the University Academic Planning Council. The UAPC is charged by the Faculty Senate as responsible for oversight for the committee's work; any requests to alter the requirements or impose changes in General Education policies are submitted to the UAPC. Such changes arise most frequently in response to assessment efforts, and as a result, the UAPC maintains an interest in the assessment of student learning in the program.

General Education Reports to the University Assessment Council and to the University Academic Planning Council can be located through the following links:

General Education Assessment Council

Most assessment projects undertaken to evaluate University General Education Requirements are done so in collaboration with (or led by) the General Education Assessment Council (GEAC). This council currently consists of the following individuals, with other experts consulted as needed:

Charles N. Halaby, Ph.D.
Research Director, General Education Assessment Council
Associate Dean for the Social Sciences
Martindale Bascom Professor of Sociology
College of Letters and Science

Nancy Westphal Johnson, Ph.D.
Chair, University General Education Committee
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education
College of Letters and Science

Elaine M. Klein, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean and Director, Academic Planning, Program Review and Assessment
College of Letters and Science

Char Tortorice
Interim Director, Testing and Evaluation Services and UW Center for Placement Testing
School of Education

Active Assessment Projects

• Instructor Perceptions of General Education Requirements
  Strategy: Web-based Survey
  Goal: Gauge awareness of General Education Requirements among faculty teaching courses that fulfill one or more General Education Requirements; find out whether/how faculty members explain or promote the goals of the requirements.
  STATUS: The report, "2006 UW-Madison General Education Requirements Survey" has been completed.
  NEXT STEPS: The UGEC has determined that the next General Education Assessment Plan will include projects related to defining "breadth" areas and assessing student learning in those areas.
  
• Student Perceptions of Learning in Communication A Courses
  Principal Investigator: Charles N. Halaby, Research Director, GEAC.
  Strategy: Survey
  Goal: Understand student perceptions of preparation for and learning in courses meeting the Communication A requirement.
  STATUS: The report, "An Assessment Study of the Effectiveness of the General Education Communication 'A' Requirement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison" has been completed
  NEXT STEPS: Professor Halaby has presented the results to the UGEC, which is considering policy implications.
  
• Core-Plus/Integrated Math Study
  Investigators: GEAC
  Strategy: to be determined
  Goal: Understand level of preparation for students entering university with different math preparation experiences
  STATUS: Suspended pending discussions with local school districts and application for broader, grant-supported study.

Assessment Studies and Reports

Quantitative Reasoning

• Student Perceptions of Learning in Quantitative Reasoning B Courses (GEAC, November 2006)
  Principal Investigator: Charles N. Halaby, Research Director, GEAC.
  Strategy: Survey
  Goal: Understand student perceptions of preparation for and learning in range of non-math, non-statistical, non-computational courses with respect to learning goals identified for Quantitative Reasoning B
  
• Two Assessment Studies of the General Education Quantitative Reasoning “A” Requirement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (GEAC, October 2005)

Study I: How the QR–A Requirement Affects Mathematical Proficiency
Study II: How the QR–A Requirement Affects Student Self-Assessments of Quantitative Reasoning Skills and Preparation for Future Courses

Principal Investigator: Charles N. Halaby, Research Director, GEAC.
Strategy: Pre-test/Post-test, Survey
Goal: Measure student learning in course in light of learning goals identified for Quantitative Reasoning A

• Working Paper Number 1: QR A as a Curricular Component, a First Look
  Authors: QR-A Subcommittee of General Education Committee
  Strategy: Analysis of student placement scores, course taking patterns, grades.
  Goal: To obtain a better understanding of students (e.g., high school preparation, performance on standardized tests, choice of major) who must take QR-A courses and the impact the requirement has upon their careers at UW-Madison.

• Quantitative Assessment Project (QAP)
  Director: (Various)
  Strategy: Work with individual faculty members to create examinations that measured students' mathematical skills in areas most germane to topics covered in their classes. 
  NOTE: Over the years, the QAP broadened its mission to conduct testing across courses with the goal of better articulating instruction between courses; data obtained across the many courses tested also allowed QAP to conduct longitudinal studies of student performance in math courses to help understand how best to advise students needing to fulfill the QR requirements. The 2002-2003 QAP assessment report is available here.
  

Communication

• "An Assessment Study of the Effectiveness of the General Education Communication “A” Requirement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison" (July 2007)
  Powerpoint Presentation to UGEC, April 2, 2008
  Principal Investigator: Charles N. Halaby, Research Director, GEAC, with Comm A Course Directors
  Strategy: Survey
  Goal: Understand student perceptions of preparation for and learning in courses meeting the Communication A requirement
  SUMMARY: This study sought to answer the fundamental research question of whether Comm-A courses provide students with opportunities and experiences they need to enhance their communication skills. First-year students who had and had not satisfied the Comm-A requirement via a UW-Madison Comm-A course were surveyed at the beginning of the Fall 06-07 with respect to self-reported gains in communication skills targeted by these courses. A stratified random sample of students was selected (480 students in the Comm-A sample, 160 students in the control) and a "paper-and-pencil" survey was administered; response rates were high (78% and 88%, respectively). A variant of the study was conducted of students who experience the Comm-A course designed for non-native speakers of English. The survey revealed the following:
  * All students reported gains in communication skills; however, students in Comm-A courses were almost three times as likely to report that their communication skills grew by "a fair amount" or "a lot". This was a significant and strong difference.
  * When looking at fourteen specific skills addressed by these courses (e.g., the ability to use library databases, to deliver a speech, to cite sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism), students in Comm-A courses reported gains in each area at rates that were statistically significant.
  * There were no differences in gains reported by male and female students, nor were there any differences in gains reported by students who took Comm-A for non-native speakers of English.

• Investigators: GEAC, Abigail Loomis, Sarah McDaniel (University Libraries, Campus Information Literacy and Library Instruction Program)
  Strategy: Administration of standardized test of information literacy skills (Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills, Kent State University)
  Goal: Evaluate level of Information Literacy skills among incoming first year students (baseline data acquisition)
  
  SUMMARY (April 4, 2008): Library and Information Literacy Instruction Office staff administered the SAILS instrument at SOAR. 71 freshmen from all areas of campus volunteered to take the proctored, 30-minute test. The small number of volunteers led to a large standard error for each of the skill areas measured by SAILS and made it difficult to make meaningful comparisons between our students and the national benchmarks provided in the report.

  In high school, almost all of our incoming freshmen had used library resources for a class assignment and 86% had a school librarian talk to them about how to do research. Taking into consideration the standard error issue, there seems to be no significant difference between the information literacy of incoming freshmen at UW Madison and the national benchmark. Students at UW Madison performed better than the institution-type benchmark at searching and retrieving sources and about the same at developing a research strategy, selecting finding tools, using finding tool features, evaluating sources, documenting sources, and understanding economic, legal, and social issues. Because of the standard error issue, it would not be appropriate to use the data to make broad conclusions about curriculum, but the results could inform some decision-making about the content of the library module of the Communication A Requirement.

  Instruments such as SAILS provide a comparison of our students to a national benchmark for information literacy. This type of data, in this case insufficiently detailed to guide curriculum planning, complements the results of authentic assessments such as the 2002 Information Literacy Workbook Analysis. A forthcoming 2008 General Education Assessment Plan will provide a framework for assessment activities and guide the design of our next information literacy study.

• Analysis of Comm B Course Credit Transfer
  Participating Units: Office of Admissions (Transfer Admissions), Gen Ed Technical Group
  Strategy: Curricular analysis of credit awarded by transfer for Comm B courses. (Goal was to increase accuracy of student record by creating system to award Comm B credit by transfer only when instruction in written/oral communication skills is component of transfer course.)
  
• Analysis of All Course and Comm B Database
  Investigators: GEAC, Melania Alvarez (Quantitative Assessment Project, Department of Mathematics) and Michael Pflieger (Assistant Dean, L&S Student Academic Affairs)
  Strategy: Curricular analysis of student course-taking patterns (linking course database and degree-audit reporting system) to investigate and reduce where feasible curricular redundancy in Comm B course array.

• Report of the Subcommittee to Reexamine the Comm-B Criteria (Spring 2003). Implementation committee acting on recommendation to revise course criteria (and thus expand Comm B course array to courses that have more oral communication instruction) and create a list of resources on instruction in oral communication.
  
• Report of the Subcommittee on Communication B Assessment (October 2002). Analysis and synthesis of recommendations stemming from 1999 - 2001 Communication B study.
  
• Information Literacy Workbook Project (2002).
  PI's: Denise Solomon (Professor, Communication Arts) and Abigail Loomis (Senior Academic Librarian, University Libraries, Coordinator Campus Information Literacy and Library Instruction).
  Strategy: Rubric-based analysis of student workbooks prepared during online research project.
  
• "Spring 1999 Communication-B Study: Outcomes Associated with the General Education Communication-B Requirement" (September 2001).
  PI: Denise Haunani Solomon, Professor of Communication Arts, Leanne K. Knobloch, Verbal Assessment Project assistant. Overseen by the Verbal Assessment Project. The 2002-2003 VAP assessment report and plan is available here.
  Strategies: Evaluation of samples of student writing, surveys of students about perceptions and attitude related to writing. The executive summary and the full report and appendix are available on this site.
  Outcome: Several recommendations ranging from revising the requirement to establishing better structures to support instruction in oral communication. These generated substantial discussion within the University General Education Committee and the University Academic Planning Council (as discussed in the General Education Committee report to the UAPC, 6/26/03), and led to the two projects listed immediately above.

Ethnic Studies

• Review of Ethnic Studies Course Array (September 2003 - May 2005)
  Committee Chair: Francisco Scarano, Professor of History
  Strategy: Articulation of descriptive guidelines to be met by all courses carrying "e" designation; review of course syllabi to approve continuation or removal of that designation.
  Goal: Clarify goals of requirement for faculty, staff, and students; realign course array with those requirements.
  Outcome: Revision of ESR course array; restructuring of oversight responsibilities for ESR; improved and more public communication about ESR with faculty and students.
  
• Review of the Ethnic Studies Requirement (March 2000 - May 2002).
  Ethnic Studies Review Committee
  Strategies: Survey of higher-education peers, focus groups with students and instructors.
  Goal: Review of decade-old requirement, evaluate student understanding of learning goals, identify issues impeding progress in this area.
  Outcome and implementation of changes: Twenty-three recommendations were approved, chief among which were the revision of requirement and the convening of implementation committee to enact the changes.

Breadth

• Pilot Study of First-Year Student Perceptions of the General Education Requirements (October 2004).
  Strategy: "Mini-focus groups" conducted in courses populated by first-year students.
  Goal: Gauge student awareness and understanding of General Education Requirements during their first semester.
  Outcome: Plans are underway to improve communication about "breadth" and general education. Faculty and instructors have been surveyed to understand better their awareness of and communication about "breadth". (See study in progress discussed above.)
  

Other Areas Affecting Undergraduate Education Across Schools/Colleges

• Assessment of Teaching Assistant Training (Fall 2005).
  PI's: Brian Bubenzer, L&S TA Resource Center, Nancy Westphal-Johnson, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education
  Strategy: Mail survey
  Goal: Follow up on issues revealed in focus groups
  
• Assessment of Teaching Assistant Training (Fall 2004).
  PI: Brian Bubenzer
  Conducted by: UW Survey Center
  Goal: Understand TA's perceptions of preparation for teaching, contributions to ability to address needs of course, program, and general education goals.

PLEASE NOTE: There are a host of activities under way at UW-Madison which take as their focus the assessment and improvement of undergraduate education. Many of these can be found via The Teaching & Learning Excellence portal maintained by the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Teaching and Learning (http://www.provost.wisc.edu/tle/index.html). Many of these endeavors touch upon the work of the University General Education Committee, but do not fall under its authority.

Assessment and Accreditation

The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools requires its accredited institutions to have programs for assessing student learning; this requirement is endorsed by the UW System Board of Regent Policy 92-7 on Academic Quality Program Assessment, which states that "each UW System institution shall continue the assessment of students' verbal and quantitative skills, refine the techniques and report annually on the use of assessment results in the improvement of teaching and learning."  As a result of this emphasis, UW-Madison's program in General Education has been the beneficiary of  the assessment of verbal and quantitative skills.  Faculty and departments will find resources (including the UW-Madison Assessment Manual) related to the evaluation of student learning through the Outcomes Assessment website provided by  the Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.    

* Questions regarding the university's accreditation may be sent to the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, IL 60602-2504, (800) 621-7440; (312) 263-0456; Fax: (312) 263-7462.