Goal: To determine through evaluation of student artificats if students are meeting learning expectations for transferring composition and oral communications skills into the context of writing within a discipline.
Strategy: To be determined.

Goal: To determine if the online library education module that complements in-person library instruction in Comm-A courses effectively introduces students to college-level learning and research resources.
Strategy: To be determined (focus group, survey, observation of student learning in context).

Goal:  To identify student-centered learning outcomes for QR-B courses.
Strategy: To be determined.
Status:  Non-calculus / non-computational courses have been identified, and a subcommittee of faculty who teach those courses have been convened.

Goal:  To assess student learning with respect to the four Essential Learning Outcomes identified for the Ethnic Studies Requirement.  Two projects have been undertaken to evaluate directly and indirectly student performance on the learning outcomes.
Strategy:  (1) Artifacts of student learning have been gathered from a variety of ESR courses and have been randomly sampled to reflect the range of students enrolled in the participating courses.  These artifacts will be examined by a group of disinterested raters who will use a standardized rubric to evaluate the extent to which they show evidence that three of the four ESR learning outcomes have been met. 
(2) A survey was administered in Spring 2012 to 2,900 students who met specific criteria: those participating in the artifact study discussed above; a randomly selected sample of students who had not yet completed the ESR and who had not and were not currently taking a Communication B or Quantitative Reasoning B course; and a randomly selected sample of students who had not completed the ESR but who were enrolled in a Communication B or Quantitative Reasoning B course.  The survey is intended to elicit information regarding student attitudes about topics related to the ESR, an element of the fourth learning outcome for the requirement.
Status:  The rating session has been scheduled and will be held in August 2012.  Survey results are being analyzed.

Strategy: Focus groups conducted with Comm A instructors.
Goal: To evaluate the relevance of the information literacy learning outcomes identified when the General Education Requirements were established in 1994.
Outcome: Feedback from multiple sessions with Comm A teaching assistants and instructors suggested that the language used to describe student learning with respect to information literacy and technical skills must be updated.
Next Steps: Updated language has been approved; the changes have been incorporated into training materials.   The updated outcomes will be the focus of an assessment project focused on the efficacy of the Computerized Library User Education system.

Goal:  (1) To directly assess the effect of Communication A on the written communication skills of students enrolled in a first-year seminar. (2) To evaluate the accuracy of the UW Placement test with respect to Communication A.
Outcome:  The small sample size for this study limits the extent to which policy decisions should be made based on this study.  Nevertheless, the results suggest that (1) students who are required to take, and who complete, a Comm A course write better than students who are required to take the course but delay it; (2) students who complete their Comm A course write at levels comparable to those who exempt from the requirement; (3) that placement strategies are appropriately determining which students need to take Comm A to improve their writing skills, and which do not; and (4) that the English Placement test serves as the best measure (as compared to AP, IB, ACT, and SAT scores) for determining the quality of student writing when students enter the university.
Next Steps:  The Communication A Subcommittee, the University General Education Committee, and the University Academic Planning Council concur that while this study was limited by the small size of the sample, this study does not suggest that students are failing to meet the learning outcomes associated with the written communication component of Comm A.  Results will be shared with the campus community for advising and informational purposes.

• Final Report

Goal: To determine if students are at a disadvantage if they complete Comm-B before completing Comm-A.
Results: Academic planning and Analysis determined that only 2% of students take these courses out of sequence; of those most are taking the courses concurrently or await news concerning exemptions.
Next Steps: Lacking policy directing enforcement and little evidence that students are harmed by the practice, the UGEC determined that the implementation of enforced requisites need not be pursued at this time.

Strategy:  Limited survey of identified peers concerning learning goals and administrative structure of college-level communication requirements.
Goal:  Identify best-practices for assessment and administration of first-tier communication requirement, and, if possible, identify instruments used by peers to assess learning outcomes in this area.
Outcome:  The UW-Madison Communication A and B requirements are distinctive, and no clear parallels exist within the comparison group of very large-enrollment research intensive public universities.  Assessment strategies in use are either highly localized (course-based) or very general (large-scale standardized tests). 
Next Steps: Although we hoped to identify an effect approach or tool for assessing student learning in this area which we might use, none were well suited to UW-Madison's distinctive requirements, which define student learning in communication and critical thinking in several dimensions. As a result, a study focused on our local requirements was developed.

Goal:  Develop a set of measurable learning outcomes for the wide array of courses used to meet the Ethnic Studies Requirement.
Strategy:  Structured discussion with ESR course instructors
Outcomes: In a series of 'flash focus groups' with ESR faculty, four learning outcomes were defined. These discussions created a foundation for future evaluation of student learning outcomes for these courses. In addition, three issues were identified by the faculty in the focus groups: (1) a campus-wide policy that General Education courses must be taken on a graded basis was implemented after it was discovered that students could take ESR pass/fail; (2) an online tool for sharing instructional resources has been developed to serve teachers of ESR courses; and (3) Academic Planning and Analysis conducted a study of course-taking patterns for students meeting ESR to help guide development of future assessment projects.
Next Steps:  In Fall 2010, the ESS will plan to undertake an assessment study to evaluate student learning in the areas identified in the report. 

Goal: To determine through syllabus review if all courses designated as QR-B courses continue to meet course criteria and have the capacity to deliver QR learning outcomes, and to identify 'non-Calculus' QR-B courses for future assessment of student learning outomces in non-computational QR courses.
Results: Two courses were removed from QR-B course array; one course was susbtantially revised to meet criteria; all courses for wuich QR-A was not specifically set as s prerequisite were contactecd and asked to set and enforce "satisfaction of QR-A" as a requisite. We anticipate that students will perform better in QR-B courses as a result of this change.

Goal:  To improve communication with students, parents, advisors, faculty, and others about the essential role "breadth" plays in attaining a liberal education.
Strategy:  Revise catalog text and other communication tools (website).  The new statement locates General Education within the overall context of a Wisconsin Experience, and describes broad learning goals (or, "ways of knowing") to be achieved in each of the three breadth areas.
Status:  The Undergraduate Catalog entry for General Education has been published online.

Goal:  To develop a flexible assessment plan that can be implemented within available resources.
Status: This project was completed in May 2008, when the long-range assessment plan was adopted by the UGEC.

Goal: To obtain baseline data on information literacy skills among incoming first-year students.
Results: Although results revealed high level of preparation for students admitted to UW-Madison, sample size problems suggested the need to reevaluate use of this instrument and the study design.

Principal Investigator: Charles N. Halaby, Research Director, General Education Assessment Council.
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 presented the results to the UGEC, which delegated consideration of policy implications to the Comm A Subcommittee. 

Goal: To determine whether students in Comm-A courses report gains in specific communication skills targeted by Comm-A courses
Results: When compared to students who have not completed Comm-A courses, those who do complete Comm-A report improvements in learning. Furthermore, non-native speakers of English who must also complete Comm-A report equivalent gains, suggesting that they are not at a disadvantage. Although this method of self-report needs to be validated using a direct measure of student learning, prior experience with self-report in QR-A suggest that students can accurately gauge their learning gains.

Investigators: General Education Assessment Council
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.

Goal: Obtain baseline data on instructor awareness/value for the general education requirements.
Strategy: Web-based Survey
Results: Instructors teaching in areas of the curriculum that are regularly assessed report greater understanding of and value of breadth requirements. The study revealed a disconnect between divisional areas, and highlighted the need to engage instructors in dialogue about liberal education and breadth. This study has informed communication about breadth requirements, including revision of catalog and advising information about breadth.
The report, "2006 UW-Madison General Education Requirements Survey" has been completed.
Next steps: The 2008 General Education Assessment Plan includes projects related to defining "breadth" areas and assessing student learning in those areas.

Principal Investigator: Charles N. Halaby, Research Director, General Education Assessment Council
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.
Outcomes: Students report learning gains in mathematical proficiency; however, they are less confident of "reasoning" or "critical thinking" skills. This requires further student, preferably by looking at what students do in QR-B courses that are not focused on math/quantitative operations.

• Final Report (November 2006)

Goal: To ensure appropriate transfer credit into UW-Madison.
Results: New courses were developed to award transfer credit for content without also granting credit for distinctive Comm-B pedagogy. The communication between several administrative units now ensures that all offices can work together to ensure that all UW-Madison students take courses that require mastery of Comm-B student learning outcomes.

Goal: To implement revisions to the ethnic studies course criteria.
Results: Descriptive guidelines and student learning outcomes for courses meeting the ethnic studies requirement were established. Course syllabi were evaluated to calibrate course array to learning outcomes. The oversight and administration of the requirement were improved.

Principal Investigators: 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

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.)

Goal: To identify "redundant" Comm-B credit.
Results: Reduced curricular redundancy in Comm-B course array; identified transfer credit issues. This was an administrative study which allowed the General Education Program to better manage limited resources for a costly requirement by reducing repetition and redundancy.

Principal Investigator: 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

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.

• Final Report (Spring 2003)

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.

Analysis and synthesis of recommendations stemming from 1999 - 2001 Communication B study.

• Final Report (October 2002)

Principal Investigators: 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.

Princial Investigators: 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. This study lead to clarification of the goals of the requirement, careful examination of the courses used to meet it,  articulation of student-centered learning outcomes, and assessment of the extent to which those outcomes are met.

• Final Report (March 2000 - May 2002)

Principal Investigator: 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: This study led to the adjustment of course criteria to improve student learning in the dimension of oral communication skills, and to provide better support for instructors who teach these skills to students. These results also help guide advisors, who can counsel students about which CommA courses might complement their prior courses. 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.

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.