Project Coordinators:
Mary Allen, 661-664-3336, Mallen@csubak.edu
Jess Deegan, 661-664-2380, Jdeegan@csubak.edu
Richard Noel, 661-664-3467, Rnoel@csubak.edu
Department of Psychology
CA State University, Bakersfield
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, CA 93311-1099
FAX 805-665-6984
Diane Halpern, 909-880-5574, Dhalpern@csusb.edu
Cynthia Crawford, 909-880-7416, Ccrawfor@csusb.edu
Department of Psychology
CA State University, San Bernardino
5500 University Parkway
San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397
FAX 909-880-7003
Please address correspondence to Mary Allen.
We are grateful for system support for organizing a meeting of CSU Psychology faculty to discuss outcomes objectives and assessment planning. We accumulated and shared a valuable set of resources, hosted a meeting of faculty from nineteen campuses, developed a document for use by departments as they articulate learning objectives, established a listserv for on-going discussion, and will share our results with department chairs throughout the system and beyond.
Project Objectives
As specified in our proposal, the meeting had three major objectives. Participants will:
- Develop a common list of goals and measurable outcomes for psychology undergraduates and a supplementary list of goals and outcomes that reflect individual campus variations.
- Learn how other campuses have implemented assessment plans and discuss assessment plans that may serve multiple campuses.
- Develop an informal network of CSUB psychology faculty who share what we know and what we learn on an on-going basis.
Preparation for the Meeting
In preparation for the February 25 to 26 meeting, project leaders did the following tasks:
- Participant Recruitment. Department chairs at each campus were contacted at least twice. Immediately upon receipt of the grant in December we posted an invitation to the CSU Psychology Chairs’ listserv, followed by mailed invitations. Campuses that did not respond within a few weeks were personally contacted by one of the project leaders by phone. Twenty campuses agreed to participate by at least joining our listserv, and nineteen campuses sent at least one representative to the meeting.
- Document Collection. We located eight published articles and a variety of Web sites related to our charge. In addition, we obtained outcomes-related statements from fifteen CSU and four other campuses. An information packet on outcomes assessment based largely on materials written by the CSUB Program Assessment Consultation Team also was created.
- Participant Support. Upon receipt of participants’ names, we emailed invitations to join the listserv and sent personal letters welcoming their participation, describing our objectives, and providing travel information. Copies of all collected documents, with minor exceptions, were mailed to each participant on about February 8.
- Synopsis of goals and objectives. Project leaders analyzed the set of accumulated materials and drafted a summary of twelve possible goals and related objectives taken from the set of documents. A summary packet, Tentative Goals and Some Possible Objectives, was created and distributed at our meeting.
The Meeting
We met for two days, beginning at 4PM on February 25 and ending at 4PM on February 26.
February 25: As participants registered, each received an updated participant list, the Tentative Goals and Some Possible Objectives statement, and a few documents that arrived after packets were mailed. As shown on the agenda, we began the meeting with personal introductions. All participants provided their name, campus, major teaching/research areas, and experience in outcomes assessment. Project leaders made introductory remarks about outcomes assessment and the program, then suggested that the twelve goals in the Tentative Goals and Some Possible Objectives booklet be considered as a first step in refining the goals we would develop. Considerable discussion ensued about differences in our curricula, the use and misuse of outcomes data, how many goals should be on the common list, how we should treat goals that are unique to psychology rather than expansions of General Education goals, and concern that any list of common goals might be used to penalize departments that opted to use a different model. As we neared dinner, we agreed to postpone the decision so that participants could reflect on it over night. After dinner, live musical entertainment was provided, ending the evening on a relaxed tone.
February 26: The next morning project leaders proposed "Model B" (see attachment). It had become clear that developing a common list would not be a fruitful exercise. Rather than accumulate two lists (one of common goals plus a supplementary list on campus variations), we decided that it would be better to create one list from which each campus could draw ideas. Model B reduced the number of goals from 12 to 9; specified that knowledge, skills, and values should be considered under each goal; clustered goals into two main categories (Knowledge, Skills, and Values Unique to Psychology and Knowledge, Skills, and Values for Undergraduates that are Further Developed in Psychology); and made more explicit our assumptions that:
- Departments are not expected to endorse every goal and objective on this list for their own campus because campus missions, faculty perspectives, and student interests and needs vary across campuses.
- Departments which share the same goals and/or objectives may not expect the same level of outcome because of differences in the relative emphasis on that goal or objective within their curricula.
- It is healthy for the system for departments to have differing goals and objectives, so students can seek learning environments that match their interests and needs.
- Individual departments are welcome to consider this list when examining their own goals and objectives. If they choose to do this, they are encouraged to borrow and adapt any element of the list that is relevant to their mission.
The group agreed to proceed with the goals in Model B, combining Goals 8 and 9 (Interpersonal Skills and Personal Development) into one goal. Eight work groups were formed to refine the definition of each goal and its objectives, and a ninth group of about five participants met to discuss general issues. A brief presentation on how to define objectives, based on materials provided to participants in their packets, was made, then groups began work. Mary Allen and Diane Halpern circulated among groups to clarify their task and to respond to questions. After about an hour and a half each work group made an oral report to the entire group.
Following the agenda, project leaders made a presentation on a variety of outcomes assessment strategies, based on materials in the packet, and invited relevant departments to share experiences with each technique as it was addressed. We encouraged work groups to consider both quantitative and qualitative techniques as they later addressed strategies for assessing their objectives, and to consider the creation of meaningful, manageable, and sustainable plans.
After lunch we devoted about 45 minutes to brief summaries on individual department’s experiences with outcomes assessment. Reports ranged from no experience to preliminary or extensive use of surveys, exams, portfolios, interviews, journals, and other assessment strategies.
Work groups began again, and they were asked to refine their goal and objectives, if necessary, and to discuss possible strategies for assessing their identified objectives. The day ended with summaries from each group and well-earned applause for their efforts.
Overall Evaluation
We had three major objectives: to produce a pair of documents detailing common and unique objectives for undergraduate psychology programs, to learn how other campuses have implemented assessment plans and discuss assessment plans that may serve multiple campuses, and to develop an informal network of CSUB psychology faculty who share what we know and what we learn on an on-going basis.
The resulting statement of goals and objectives represents the collegial, collaborative efforts of forty-eight faculty from nineteen campuses. Although we did not produce the proposed pair of documents, we believe this single document is consistent with the spirit of this effort and demonstrates respect for the considerable variation across departments within the system. Departments and individuals generously shared information on assessment outcomes and plans, and we have established a listserv to facilitate continued discussion. Informal feedback from a few participants suggests that ideas from our meeting already are being discussed on individual campuses (see attachment with copies of relevant email). We believe that we have set in place a potential for continuing inter-campus discussion and collaboration, but most departments may be too unique in their mission to extensively collaborate on assessment projects beyond our general discussion of goals, outcomes, and assessment strategies.
What We Learned about the Process
In retrospect, we needed to allow more time in the beginning for the participants to process the disseminated information prior to attempting to achieve consensus on the goals. It also became apparent that members would be unable to attend to the task unless some of the underlying issues were identified and discussed. We were fortunate to have the overnight break prior to the next day’s work, which allowed the leaders to respond to the issues raised in the initial session.
Post Meeting Events and Plans
On March 1 we posted to the listserv a final list of participants with phone numbers and email addresses, and on March 3 we posted to the listserv our transcription of the goal and objectives statements drafted by the workgroups with a request for corrections and suggested changes. The final list was sent to all participants and CSU Psychology chairs on March 16.
Other follow-up activities are planned.
- CSU Psychology chairs hold an annual meeting at the Western Psychological Association convention, which will be held in Irvine this April. Two of the five leaders of this project are department chairs (Diane Halpern and Jess Deegan). They will invite a discussion of the usefulness of our final document.
- The listserv will remain active indefinitely to encourage continuing communication and collaboration among campuses.
- Project leaders anticipate broadening the involved discussion by presenting a colloquium on our findings at the April 2000 WPA convention.
Expenditure Report
We received $20,910 to support the meeting. Here is the breakdown of expenditures:
Project Coordinator Stipends $5,000
Copying, Supplies, Mailing 1,140
Student Assistance 680
Travel, Lodging, and Meals 14,050
TOTAL $20,870
This accounting does not include about three days of clerical support and a second student assistant who worked during the conference. Supplies and copying costs exceeded our original estimates, two faculty from Northridge were added after our final travel budget request was filed, flight costs increased over original estimates for most Northern California travelers, and we added a rental van to provide local transportation, but we were able to use savings from three last-minute cancellations to cover these expenses. Overall, actual expenses only slightly exceeded our funding and we are willing to absorb these costs as matching funds from the CSUB Faculty Teaching and Learning Center as a worthwhile investment in the five CSUB faculty who attended the meeting.
List of Attachments
Agenda
Participant List
The enclosed list includes the 48 faculty from 19 campuses who attended the meeting, plus 9 others who received materials or asked to join the listserv.
References
We enclose a Bibliography and a list of additional URLs. In addition, we enclose copies of statements from individual campuses, the key articles, the distributed information packet on outcomes assessment (CSU Psychology Outcomes Assessment Meeting), the tentative list of twelve goals (Tentative Goals and Some Possible Objectives), and Model B.
Emailed Feedback
These unsolicited comments from participants are provided as anecdotal evidence of project impact.
Goals and Objectives for the Undergraduate Psychology Major
This is the major product of our meeting. It has been shared with every CSU psychology department chair and project participant.
