Integrative Studies Program Review Task Force Final Report ... · Integrative Studies Program...

Integrative Studies Program Review Task Force Final Report

submitted February 6, 2012

to the Senate Executive Committee

of the Keene State College Senate

Membership of the Task Force

Elvis Foster, Sciences

Marie Duggan, Social Sciences (resigned in October)

James Chesebrough, Arts

Anne-Marie Mallon, Humanities , Co-chair

Tom Bassarear, Teacher Education, Co-chair

Rebecca Brown, Professional Studies

Lois Merry, Library

John Lund, Adjunct

Lorianne DiSabato, Adjunct (resigned in December)

Michael McCarthy, Senate, Adjunct Union (resigned in October)

Hank Knight, Faculty Union

Pete Nielsen, Integrative Studies Program Council

Pat Halloran, PAT, Academic Affairs

Mark Schmidl-Gagne, PAT, Student Affairs

Bethany Morin, Student (graduated in December)

Maddie Rosa, Student (resigned in September)

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Charge from the Senate Executive Committee

General Comments

Conclusions

Responses to the Charges of the Senate Executive Committee

Comprehensive Recommendations from the Task Force

Comprehensive Report on Each of the Five Categories of the Charge1

Mission

Governance and Structure

Communication

Implementation

Assessment

Appendix 1: Internal Documents

a. ISP Review Taskforce charge from the SEC and Provost (word file)

b. Revised charge sent to SEC May 2011 (word file)

c. KSC Mission Statement (http://www.keene.edu/planning/pc_mission.cfm)

d. NEASC Standards

(http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standards_html_version)

e. 2010 Keene State College NEASC Self Study (on KSC website)

f. KSC Academic Plan: (pdf file)

g. ISP Manual (http://isp.keenecommons.net)

h. ISP website (http://www.keene.edu/ISP/)

i. ISP Assessment website (http://www.keene.edu/assessment/ISPAssessment.cfm)

j. May 2011 ISP meetings on the Perspectives courses

(http://www.keene.edu/ISP/ then click on ISP Archive)

k. Keene Academic Plan 2004 (pdf file)

l. Davis Reports (word files)

m. October 21, 2011 letter from Senators Martin, Greene, and Stemp

1 Each report has these sections:

Background

Statement of General Findings

Summary of Successes, Challenges, and Recommendations from Constituencies

Perceived Successes

Perceived Challenges

Recommendations from Constituencies

Recommendations by the ISP Review Task Force

http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standards_html_version

http://isp.keenecommons.net/

http://www.keene.edu/ISP/

http://www.keene.edu/ISP/

2

Appendix 2: External Documents

a. Reports:

Liberal Education and America's Promise (LEAP)

http://www.aacu.org/leap/can/index.cfm

Greater Expectations

http://www.greaterexpectations.org/

b. Articles

―Which Core Matters More?‖ Chronicle of Higher Education, September 25, 2011 (pdf

file)

―Academically Adrift: A Must Read,‖ Chronicle of Higher Education, January 20, 2011

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/academically-adrift-a-must-read/28423

―Assessing Academic/Intellectual Skills in Keene State College‘s Integrative Studies

Program,‖ Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 1(1), Fall 2010.

Appendix 3: Data from Campus Constituencies

This includes the surveys and results of the surveys (data tables, charts, open-ended comments),

the reports and forums. Except for the removal of names in comments directed at specific

individuals (e.g. Professor X didn’t review the syllabus) this data is presented in its original form.

In print, these various documents total about 117 pages single-spaced.

a. Academic Affairs report (3 pages)

b. Student Affairs report (2 pages)

c. Open forums (6 pages)

d. Administrator survey: data tables, graphs, and open-ended comments (19 pages)

e. Student survey: data tables, graphs, and open-ended comments (34 pages)

f. Faculty survey: data tables, graphs, and open-ended comments (53 pages)

http://www.aacu.org/leap/can/index.cfm

http://www.greaterexpectations.org/

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/academically-adrift-a-must-read/28423

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The ISP Review Task Force is pleased to present the results of our seven month comprehensive

review of Keene State College‘s Integrative Studies Program to the Senate Executive

Committee. As the report and the appendices attached to the report indicate, we have solicited

feedback from every constituency on campus that has a connection to or interest in the successful

delivery of the ISP to our students. In focusing on how the ISP has impacted student learning,

we have constructed surveys, held campus forums, conducted interviews, reviewed relevant

documents, talked with administrators and faculty who had knowledge of specific aspects of the

ISP, and read any and all additional materials that have been delivered to us in the spirit of this

review.

We wish to acknowledge with gratitude the participation of the campus community in this work,

as well as the willingness of the ISP leadership and council membership to share any materials

requested. What became clear to us as we did our review is that there is strong support for the

mission of the ISP and there has been an incredible amount of work done by many individuals—

administrators, faculty and staff—to deliver the ISP to our students. Their commitment to

improving our students‘ abilities to be better thinkers in our classrooms and more skillful and

knowledgeable participants in their world must be noted with appreciation.

The Charge from the Senate Executive Committee

The original charge from the SEC was organized into four groups: Mission, Governance and

Structure, Communication, and Implementation and Assessment. After the first two meetings of

the task force, as we worked on identifying the tasks of the charge, we realized that we needed to

revise the charge for greater clarity (a copy of the revision was sent to Larry MacDonald), and

that revised document became the basis of our investigation (see Charge in appendix).

Essentially, assessment became a separate area of focus, and additional questions for several of

the other areas helped clarify our tasks.

Because the charge asked us to report on ―ISP successes and challenges and to provide

recommendations to improve on the current program,‖ in the areas of Mission, Governance and

Structure, Communication, Implementation and Assessment, this report has been organized

according to those categories. However, the interconnected nature of these areas became clear to

the task force as we examined the data received from the campus: e.g. communication issues

impact implementation issues; assessment issues impact structure issues, etc. While we

attempted to focus our responses to the data according to the stated categories of the charge,

readers will note the inevitable overlap in many of the recommendations concerning those

categories. The task force preferred to err on the side of redundancy rather than ignore the

important connections among the issues emphasized by the constituencies who offered their

responses.

It is important to emphasize that this task force was charged with reviewing the Integrative

Studies Program in its fifth year of implementation on campus as the college‘s ―new‖ general

education program. It was not the task force‘s charge to determine whether or not the ISP should

4

continue to exist, nor to propose solutions to the challenges which we discovered. It was also not

the task force‘s charge to review issues related to the hiring and supervision of adjuncts or

faculty workloads.

It is also important to note that this task force began as a sixteen member cohort (per the charge

of the SEC) who represented all the relevant constituencies involved in delivering the ISP to our

students, including two student representatives. We lost several of those members at the

beginning of the fall semester for various reasons; we asked for replacements to be named by the

SEC but received no response to that request; subsequently, two other members have left the task

force.

This final report has been compiled and written by eleven of the original members of the task

force who met for one and a half hours once a week, from March to May, 2011, and from late

August to January, 2012. This first comprehensive review of the ISP represents many hours of

reading, discussion, debate and analysis as the task force attempted to create and present to the

campus as thorough and helpful a review as possible within that limited time period.

General Comments

It was clear in the feedback from the majority of constituents that, no matter how they define the

term, the Integrative Studies Program at this point is neither integrative in its form nor integrated

into the college curriculum. Nor is there consensus about what Integrative or Integrated should

look like in Keene State‘s general education curriculum. A comment from a student (brought to

the committee by our student representative) was particularly powerful: ―We see lots of

perspectives in our ISP courses but no integration.‖

The National Leadership Council‘s report on Liberal Education & America’s Promise (LEAP), a

document that Keene State College has embraced as a meaningful reference point (see Appendix

2), confirms the importance and relevance of the components in our ISP curriculum that engage

our students intellectually, civically, and socially. However, the fragmentation that we are

experiencing on this campus relative to the ISP reflects the same fragmentation that characterizes

higher education in the 21st century. It seems important therefore to acknowledge that to achieve

the vision behind the ISP, and articulated in AASCU2 and national reports

3, there is a need for a

sustained campus dialogue about integration—what it means, why it is important, what it would

look like, and who must be involved to make it work. These essential questions cannot be

resolved by committees working in isolation.

At the end of five years of the ISP, there is clearly an interest from multiple campus

constituencies to engage in a discussion about how to revise and improve the ISP so that its

original vision can be more fully and inclusively implemented. Indeed, when reviewing the five

year history of ISP discussions about campus participation and investment in the ISP curriculum,

we must note that many of the recommendations made to and by the task force have been

articulated in other ISP-generated faculty discussions about the program‘s successes and

challenges. However, it is also clear to the task force that many of the comments in the surveys

came from misconceptions, misunderstandings and partial understandings about the ISP‘s

2 American Association of State Colleges & Universities

3 See Appendix 2

5

structure and policies. In fact, members of the task force realized as we began our review that

we also shared in some of these misunderstandings. This problem speaks to the need for

continuous, diligent and patient conversation and communication about any shared initiative that

impacts the education of our students.

Finally, an important issue that emerged from our review and discussion pertains to the

participation of adjunct faculty in delivering the ISP to our students. NEASC has addressed this

extensive reliance on adjunct faculty as a problem at KSC. Adjuncts and others have addressed

the inequity of compensation, the minimal faculty development support, and the lack of

communication about the purpose and structure of the ISP in the feedback we have received.

While we acknowledge that there are serious economic issues that would be challenging to

resolve, we wish to go on record as requesting that greater attention be given to the substantial

contributions that adjunct faculty have made and continue to make to this program.

Conclusions

In anticipating a follow-up from the Senate Executive Committee, the Office of the Provost, and

the Senate to the findings of the task force, we want to strongly recommend that this report be

shared not only with the Senate but also with the entire campus community. Recent changes in

the ISP, approved by the Senate, as well as current conversations about the number of ISP seats

and the size of ISP courses, will affect how this information is received and how useful it can be

in responding to those changes. Though other ISP evaluation plans are scheduled in the future

(e.g. the ISP self-study report), we urge the SEC, the Provost, and the Senate to share the

findings of the task force soon and begin to address its recommendations.

We also strongly urge the Senate Executive Committee to plan a campus dialogue as a next step

in the review process that would encourage new ideas, informed by this task force‘s findings,

which would have broad-based input and ownership.

Responses to the Charges of the Senate Executive Committee

Below are condensed responses to each of the fourteen bullets in the (revised) charge. This gives

the reader a sense of each of these five elements so that there is context for the six overarching

recommendations that we make at the end of this section.

Mission of the ISP

To what extent does the mission of the ISP relate to the standards set by NEASC,

the mission of the college, the academic plan?

The ISP mission reflects values and goals that fully support all of the above. Its language echoes

the language of those other documents in significant ways, including ―think critically and

creatively‖ (College Mission Statement) and ―actively engage our students in a learning process

that is grounded in service, citizenship, and ethical awareness‖ (Academic Plan).

What is the evidence to prove that we meet the standards listed above?

It is important to note that the most current NEASC review made no critical comments regarding

the ISP as a whole. Further evidence from associated literature, material from campus

constituencies, and the responses to the surveys indicate strong support of the mission.

6

Governance and Structure of the ISP

How effectively is the program organized given the programmatic outcomes?

The findings suggest that the program is inappropriately structured, far too complicated, and

does not provide the flexibility expected by students or faculty.

How effective is the governance/decision making structure of ISP including the role

of the Integrative Studies Program Council and Advisory Board?

The findings show that the majority of respondents either do not know enough about the

program‘s council or advisory board, or are unconvinced of their effectiveness. The findings

also reveal a lack of accountability associated with the governance of the program.

To what extent is the program organized in a way that supports the participation of

faculty and adjuncts – including all new hires -- from across campus?

The findings suggest that there are academic disciplines/departments that have been denied full

participation in the Perspectives component of the program and that many adjuncts do not feel

fully supported by the college in their participation in the ISP.

To what extent is the program design complementary to the courses required of

majors?

The relationship between ISP courses and the majors is not fully understood by many faculty,

students and staff. For example, one course in the Perspectives and Interdisciplinary components

can also count as a required course in the major; no more than one course in a discipline can

count as a required course in the ISP; departments may design and require as many ISP courses

for their major as they wish.

Communication about and Understanding of the ISP

To what extent do all faculty (tenure-track and adjunct) understand—and

communicate to their students—the purpose and processes of the program?

Though many faculty indicated an understanding of the purpose (mission) of the ISP, a

significant number of faculty, both tenure-track and adjunct, could not respond to questions

about the processes of the program; there seemed to be a significant gap in their understanding of

how the program was meant to be implemented.

To what extent do all students, newly admitted and current, understand the

purpose, requirements and processes of the program?

Students entered the college with a general understanding of the purpose and requirements of the

program, but showed a decreasing level of understanding of its purpose, requirements and

processes as they proceeded through their college curriculum.

To what extent do all other constituencies understand the purpose, requirements,

and processes of the program?

Other constituencies on campus showed general understanding of the purpose of the program but

noted that they felt generally neglected in any communications about the requirements and

processes of the program.

Implementation and Assessment

7

To what extent is the design of ISP being accomplished by our current course

offerings in seats, levels and distribution?

Based on student comments, information from the ISPC, and comments from the deans, the ISP

has been successful in providing seats for the Foundations courses (ITW and IQL or alternatives)

and for 100 level courses. There seems to be a shortage of seats in the Natural Sciences at all

levels and a shortage of seats at the 300 and 400 level. There appears to be an acute need for

upper level Natural Science seats.

To what extent is the design of ISP being accomplished by the way ISP courses are

designed and delivered?

If the answer to this question is based on the assessments conducted by the ISP, the outcomes

based program appears to be successful in the area of writing outcomes. ISP assessment clearly

shows that the program is not succeeding in the quantitative literacy area. At this time there is no

evidence available to comment on the Perspectives and Interdisciplinary outcomes, as these have

not been assessed.

Student comments indicate that the students felt that their ISP coursework assisted them in

meeting the core skills outcomes and specifically identified Writing, Critical Thinking and

Creative Thinking as the most significant skills areas.

Does the assessment process provide the information needed to determine if the

program, in all its diverse modes of delivery, is effective?

The data are incomplete (see below) and the feedback from the campus indicates that the process

is cumbersome and too complex to be used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program at

this time.

What does the assessment data indicate about programmatic effectiveness?

The evidence indicates that the ITW courses are generally successful in meeting the writing

outcomes and the critical thinking outcome.

The evidence indicates that the IQL courses are meeting some of the outcomes and not others.

The latest report shows that less than half of the students meet expectations on the first outcome:

applying the basic methods of descriptive statistics. Similar concerns are expressed with the

Quantitative Reasoning outcome which assesses student success in ISP courses where QR is

stated as one of the outcomes.

With respect to Skills outcomes, assessment data and student feedback indicate the strongest

results in the area of writing and critical thinking, though both reports indicate that we are not yet

at a level that we would like to be. Data from Critical Reading and Quantitative Reasoning

indicate serious concerns about the process and the data. The Media Technology Fluency

outcomes have been assessed just once, and the remaining three Skills Outcomes have not yet

been assessed.

Interdisciplinary and Integrative outcomes have been constructed but not yet assessed. There is

still no campus consensus on Perspectives outcomes that are assessable.

8

Is the feedback stage of the assessment process working for all constituencies?

The data indicate at this point that the assessment process is not working for most constituencies.

While faculty compliance with putting outcomes on the syllabi of ISP courses is about 90%,

compliance on getting students to submit artifacts is still problematic. While feedback is sent to

faculty after each cycle, many faculty state either that they don‘t see these reports, that the

information is not useful, and/or that they want feedback that will be helpful in teaching and

assessing their own courses. At the same time, there is a virtual gold mine of useful information

in the various assessment reports and occasional assessment meetings open to all faculty. It

seems few faculty are aware of those meetings and the reports of the meetings are long and

unwieldy, e.g., Major Summative Points from the May 2011 meetings is 9 pages long.

Comprehensive Recommendations from the Task Force

After careful review and considerable discussion, the ISP Review Task Force makes the

following recommendations to the SEC about the Integrative Studies Program.

1. The perception of inflexibility and unwieldiness in the ISP structure is a major note

sounded in the feedback from all constituencies. Simplify and clarify the program

structure so that everyone involved in the delivery of the ISP can clearly understand its

goals and procedures.

2. The issue of inclusion is key to the issue of ownership. The ISP structure needs to be

more open to all faculty from all schools and departments; and all schools and

departments need to be involved in the design and delivery of the program. This does not

mean equal numbers in all schools or departments, but it does mean that all departments

feel that they are welcome in and can be engaged in this process.

3. The structure of the ISP must ensure that all faculty who are teaching in the program are

provided with the information, materials and support needed to be successful in their

teaching assignments. All faculty, adjunct and tenure track, should be treated in an ethical

manner.

4. Communication strategies need to be developed and maintained to make the program

more visible and accessible for everyone. These strategies may be as simple as a one-

page overview of the mission, structure and resource sites for ISP or as complex as a task

force focused on addressing one by one the problems and issues that have been identified

in the feedback.

5. The assessment process needs a fundamental rethinking and redesign with the goal of

creating a process that is understood and manageable so that this work directly

contributes to the improvement of the ISP.

6. Administration of the program needs to be simplified and clarified in order to deal with

day-to-day issues, to maintain regular communication with the campus, and to interact

directly with faculty, chairs, and staff who advise students.

9

COMPREHENSIVE REPORTS ON EACH CHARGE

This section contains detailed responses for each of the five categories of review in the charge:

including a background, a statement of general findings, a representative summary of perceived

successes, perceived challenges, and recommendations from the constituencies4, and finally

recommendations specific to this charge from the Task Force.

ISP Review Task Force Report on the Mission Statement

Background

The ISP Mission is as follows:

The Integrative Studies Program is at the core of the College's commitment to a liberal

arts education. The program's focus on broad questions, and the integration of knowledge

and skills, complements student work in a chosen major. Drawing on disciplinary and

interdisciplinary perspectives, the program offers students intellectual concepts and skills

for understanding themselves and their place in the world, including the values that

contribute to personal growth and social responsibility.


There is a general agreement that the mission of the Integrative Studies Program is an accurate

and quality statement of appropriate goals for the ISP. Our examination revealed that the

NEASC Self Study, Keene State College Mission, the Academic Plan and the Integrative Studies

Program Mission share a great deal of common language; therefore the ISP Mission is closely

aligned with these three documents. In addition, campus constituencies in Academic Affairs,

Student Affairs and the all-campus forum strongly supported the mission.

The NEASC Standards call for a general education program that ―embodies the institution's

definition of an educated person and prepares students for the world in which they will live. The

requirement informs the design of all general education courses, and provides criteria for its

evaluation, including the assessment of what students learn.‖ They also call for content courses

that focus on the subject matter and methodologies ―as well as on their relationships to one

another― (http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standards_html_version).

The Mission of the College includes: ―think critically and creatively; achieve academic

excellence through the integration of teaching, learning, scholarship, and service‖

(http://www.keene.edu/planning/pc_mission.cfm).

The Keene State College Academic Plan includes: ―To significantly enhance and become

recognized for the quality of our academic programs and the academic achievements of our

faculty and students; to actively engage our students in a learning process that is grounded in

service, citizenship, and ethical awareness‖ (http://sites.keene.edu/academicaffairs).

4 The interested reader can access in Appendix 3 the three surveys with data tables, graphs, and all the comments

made by respondents. This appendix also contains the transcripts of the open forums and the reports from interviews

with nine different departments in Student Affairs and Academic Affairs.

http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standards_html_version

http://www.keene.edu/planning/pc_mission.cfm

http://sites.keene.edu/academicaffairs/

10

Findings from the Student Survey

This information came from the open-ended student survey questions ―What did you like most

about the ISP?‖ and ―What changes would you recommend to make the ISP more effective?‖

While there were responses that indicate that some students have a negative opinion regarding

the program (―The ISP is useless. ‖) and therefore would not be supportive of the ISP Mission,

there were a number of thoughtful responses that indicate an acceptance of the program, and in

some cases outright support.

Findings from the Faculty Survey

The results from the faculty survey tell a mixed story regarding the mission and the degree to

which it is fulfilled. While the majority of respondents agree that the goals of the Mission are

important and that ISP courses lead to fulfillment of the Mission, the qualitative responses tell a

somewhat different tale.

Comments seem to fall along a normal distribution; some view the program as incredibly

innovative and a vital component of student learning, while others see it as an overly

cumbersome program weighed down by requirements. A theme that is raised in a number of

comments is the role of students in the ISP, their skills and abilities upon entering Keene State,

and their perceptions of the mission of the program. Cross-referencing faculty perceptions and

expectations with the perceptions and expectations of students will likely provide enlightening

insights regarding the program.

The comments that address the commitment to a liberal arts education are generally quite

positive, with concerns about or recommendations for improvement imbedded in them.

The bulk of the comments associated with the Mission were related to the integration of skills

and knowledge through completion of ISP courses. These comments also included a great deal

of criticism, or at the very least skepticism related to the program‘s success in achieving this

portion of the Mission.

The fewest comments were associated with the goal of providing the disciplinary and

interdisciplinary perspectives that give students concepts and skills to identify three areas: their

place in the world, personal growth, and social responsibility. To draw conclusions from the

comments or the quantity of comments seems difficult. The same may be said for the extent to

which the ISP complements a student‘s chosen major.


Perceived Successes from Constituencies

The mission of the Integrative Studies Program is an accurate and quality statement of

appropriate goals for the ISP.

Constituencies in Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and the all campus forum strongly

supported the mission.

Many students commented favorably on the diversity of knowledge and the opportunity

to broaden personal horizons.

11

Students liked the integration of subjects, the variety of people in the classes from other

fields of study, and courses that encouraged other cultures.

Some students stated that they enjoyed the ―challenge‖ of the ISP courses.

Students felt that the ISP courses encouraged critical thinking and provided an

introduction to college work.

Students appreciated the chance to explore possible areas of study before selecting a

major.

The quantitative data in the faculty survey indicates a majority of respondents agree the

ISP leads to enhanced student learning and understanding.

The bulk of the responses demonstrate agreement with the importance of a "general

education" component as part of a liberal arts education.

The Mission is seen as a strength of the ISP.

Perceived Challenges from Constituencies

There were responses that indicate that some students have a negative opinion regarding

the program (―The ISP is useless‖) and therefore would not be supportive of the ISP

Mission.

Some students questioned the rigor of their ISP courses.

Almost one third of faculty respondents have no opinion regarding the Mission of the

Program. (Faculty Survey Question 18)

More than half of the faculty respondents either did not believe the Mission of the ISP is

being fulfilled or had no opinion on it.

There is a division amongst faculty regarding the effectiveness of the ISP Program.

There is division amongst the faculty regarding the question of whether the ISP leads to

enhanced student learning and understanding. (Faculty Survey Question 6)

There are questions and recommendations regarding the methods by which the ISP

provides for the ―general education‖ of Keene students, the autonomy provided faculty

members in the ISP, and the commitment of all faculty to the ISP.

The methods and structures by which the Mission is achieved appear to be perceived by a

number of faculty as weaknesses or misguided.


Define ―integration‖ in a consistent way that informs the entire campus community.

Currently, the concept of integration appears to be an elusive entity.

Widely advertise the ISP Mission in highly visible ways.

Blatantly and shamelessly connect the Integrative Studies program to the liberal

education mission and identity of Keene State College. This would result in a statement

that would add more meaning for the general public.

Include elements in the mission that would relate to career skills.

Consider more ways to develop the portion of the mission that deals with the student‘s

place in the world, personal growth, and social responsibility.

Identify and promote ways in which the ISP may be made more relevant to students‘

chosen majors.

Identify and promote ISP courses that could be utilized by undeclared students to explore

academic majors.

12

Restructure the process for approval of upper-level ISP courses while studying away.

Develop a commitment to the ISP among all constituencies in the college community, as

well as means for demonstrating this commitment.

Continue to create more IQL and ITW courses.


Define ―integration‖ in a consistent way that informs the entire campus community.

Make the ISP Mission Statement more visible in college documents, e.g. the webpage.

Develop more fully the mission component that focuses on a student‘s place in the world,

personal growth, and social responsibility.

13

ISP Review Task Force Report on Governance and Structure

Background

The current Integrative Studies Program (ISP) was formally introduced in 2007-2008. The

program is structured as follows:

Foundations [8 credits]

One course in Thinking and Writing (ITW) [4 credits]

One course in Quantitative Literacy (IQL) [4 credits]

Perspectives [36 credits]

Two courses in the Humanities (IH) [8 credits]

One course in Fine Arts (IA) [4 credits]

One course in Fine Arts or Humanities [4 credits]

Two courses in Natural Sciences (IN) [8 credits]

Two courses in Social Sciences (IS) [8 credits]

One course with a multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or cross-disciplinary view [4 credits]

The ISP has two governing bodies — the Integrative Studies Program Council (ISPC) and the

Integrative Studies Program Advisory Board (ISPAB). The Council is co-chaired by a faculty

member and the Associate Provost. Members include the coordinators of each area (ITW, IQL,

Assistant Dean of Arts & Humanities, Assistant Dean of Science & Social Science, and II), the

chair of the ISP Assessment Subcommittee, and the Executive Director of CELT. The Council‘s

role is to ensure that issues and policies related to the program are discussed, to provide

individual members of the KSC community, departments, or schools a venue to raise questions

or concerns about the ISP, and after deliberation, to make recommendations for changes to the

Program to the ISPAB.

The ISPAB is a larger body with elected faculty from all schools, the library, adjunct faculty,

two students, and representatives from the College Senate, Student Affairs, and Academic

Affairs. The ISPAB functions as the voting body of the ISP. Program changes or revisions

approved by the ISPAB are forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee for distribution to the

appropriate Senate Subcommittee for deliberation and ultimate Senate consideration.


Analysis of responses from the various surveys and forums reveals a dominant theme: the

concept of an integrative studies program (ISP) is well liked and accepted within the various

campus constituencies. However, the majority view is that due to limitations in the structure and

governance mechanisms, the program has failed to meet its stated mission. Revision is therefore

required in various areas.

14

Successes, Challenges, and Recommendations from Constituencies

Structure of the ISP


From students

A strong theme for students is the appreciation of the range of choices and variety when

selecting courses in the ISP.

Students often reported that they were exposed to new and interesting perspectives by the

structure of the ISP. They reported being more ―well-rounded‖ and that the courses aided

their growth as students.

Some students said they liked gaining knowledge outside their major as a break from

those focused courses and that ISP allowed them to explore other disciplines. Some liked

being ―forced‖ to take courses outside their major.

Some students said that they liked learning in these courses and that some were

―interesting‖ or ―fascinating.‖

From faculty

The program enjoys a faculty participation level of over 50%.

A significant proportion of the faculty members (41.4% of the faculty respondents)

appear to be satisfied with the current structure of the ISP.

A significant proportion of the faculty members (35.1% of the faculty respondents)

appear to be comfortable with the current distribution of the ISP across academic

disciplines.

Several academic departments are actively engaged in the program.

There seems to be consensus among many that the ISP is a great idea that needs

refinement.

There appears to be consensus from all major constituencies on campus that the concepts

of skills development, integrative studies, and critical thinking are to be embraced.

From staff and administrators

The upper levels of Student Affairs staff see the ISP as having evolved over time,

becoming clearer to the campus community.


From students

A strong theme for students is that they feel the number of ISP requirements reduced the

time they would have liked to focus on their major.

Many reported seeing no connection between these courses and their major.

Several respondents said the ISP was a ―waste of time‖ while others suggested either

ITW or IQL were not helpful.

The quality of the courses was also a strong issue for many students.

15

From faculty

Approximately 50% of the faculty members who participate in the delivery of the ISP

are adjunct faculty, and there is a strong level of discontentment within that group.

There appears to be significant disappointment and/or concern that some departments

have been excluded from participation in the ISP Perspectives area.

Regarding the distribution of ISP requirements across the academic disciplines, 35%

agree that it is appropriate, 26% disagree and 39% have no opinion regarding distribution

of requirements.

About 41% of faculty agree that the ISP is appropriately structured to meet the needs of

KSC students, 28% disagree, and 32% have no opinion.

There is a widespread perception that the program is not as integrated as it could be. The

current structure leaves out individuals and/or departments that would like to participate.

There appears to be a proliferation of objectives but no clear focus or guidelines.

Some faculty and staff have reported that the structure of the ISP appears to be

problematic when KSC students transfer to institutions and when students transfer to

KSC from other institutions.

The ISP in its current configuration is too complicated.

The number of credits comprising the program is too high.

The program is too demanding in its requirements, while lacking flexibility.


Some academic support offices have reported that the structure of the ISP appears to be

problematic when KSC students transfer to other institutions and when students transfer

to KSC from other institutions.

Administrators are mixed on whether they believe ISP courses are well distributed across

the curriculum, the departments, and the faculty. Of 15 respondents to the survey, 9

reported the distribution should be changed, particularly regarding the participation of

applied sciences and the School of Professional and Graduate Studies.

Several administrators said that the program relies too heavily on adjunct faculty and that

tenure-track faculty should be encouraged or required to participate more.

Most Student Affairs staff have little understanding of how the ISP functions. Their

insights come mostly from students they have interacted with.

Academic Affairs staff feel that ISP is not truly integrated—not into other ISP courses,

into the majors, or into student life.


The calls for revision of the ISP structure may be summarized in three broad areas: more

inclusiveness and integration, more flexibility, and simplification. The data strongly convey the

sentiment that the majority of the KSC community (e.g. 64% of the faculty) thinks that ISP

structure needs significant revision.

From students

A very strong theme from the student survey is that ISP courses should be more closely

connected to their major.

16

Students believe that ISP would be more successful if the required courses were more

connected to their area of interest.

Reduced the number of credits in ISP to allow students to devote more time to their major

courses.

Make the requirements of ISP more flexible to allow students in different majors to

choose different ISP requirements.

Increase the variety of courses available to students.

From faculty

Reduce the number of required credits in the ISP, while preserving flexibility. For

example, one idea forwarded is to have a 32-credits program consisting of two linked

courses from each school (Arts & Humanities, Sciences, and Professional Studies) and

two linked interdisciplinary courses.

There is a concern that the delivery of the program is too heavily dependent on adjuncts.

The structure of the ISP should be revised to encourage and increase participation by

tenure-track faculty.

Recognize and include the applied sciences as a pertinent classification.

Simplify the program; the current program configuration is far too complicated. One

suggested strategy is to significantly reduce the number of rules and exceptions to those

rules.

Abandon or significantly curtail use of the many ISP prefixes

Consider eliminating the requirement to take upper-level ISP courses.

Make the ISP Perspectives courses operate as gateways to respective majors rather than a

window to nowhere.

Improve the level of participation from the academic departments by allowing them

jurisdiction over the ISP courses they offer.


Review the use of the various ISP prefixes, since these add to the complexity of the

program.

Make the intersection between the ISP and the major more intentional.

Governance of the ISP


From faculty

Some 50% of respondents on faculty survey have reported participation every semester in

the ISP, while 77.6% report some level of participation.

Faculty members from departments currently excluded from participation in the

Perspectives component of the program have expressed a desire to participate.

Some 40% of the faculty respondents have expressed that they have been adequately

prepared to teach ISP courses.


Administrators seem to perceive the ISP Council and Board as appropriate.

17

Administrators perceive the co-chair structure as good, but think new participants are

now needed.


From faculty

The current leadership is perceived as being too invested with current structure, thus

making revision difficult.

Some people do not understand how faculty are selected to teach ISP courses.

Some people perceive that administrative barriers prevent integration of ISP into the

college culture. Some 52.1% of the faculty expressed no opinion of the ISPAB; another

28.9% of the respondents did not understand and/or did not support the role of the

ISPAB.

There is a perception that the ISP needs more funding for tenure-track faculty to deliver

the program.

About 40% of the faculty report that they agree that they have been adequately prepared

to teach ISP outcomes while about 14% indicated they were not adequately prepared.

The largest group indicated ambivalence.

Only 19% of the faculty responses express understanding and support for the role of the

Integrative Studies Program Advisory Board (ISPAB).


From faculty

Develop and/or refine a mechanism for improving accountability in the administration of

the ISP, and preserving that accountability.

Strengthen the links between ISP, departments, and individual faculty teaching ISP

courses. Two conflicting suggestions were to give more power back to the academic

departments over ISP courses they offer and to create an ISP Department with rotating

term-limited membership.

Streamline the approval process for new ISP courses.

Allow for ISP/non-ISP course substitutions approved by faculty advisors in related

disciplines.

Have an office or person with direct responsibilities for day-to-day aspects of the

program.

Revisit the roles of the ISPAB and the ISP Advisory Council. Consider a governance

structure that is simpler, more visible and transparent.

ISP would benefit from more engagement from the faculty in various academic

departments.

Address the proportion of full-time faculty to adjunct faculty who participate in the

delivery of the program.

Have adequate representation of adjunct faculty on the administrative committees for the

ISP.

Provide more instructional support for ISP faculty. Training of faculty members may be

required in specific areas of the ISP. This should include professional development for

adjunct ISP faculty members who participate in the delivery of the program.

Additionally, opportunities for faculty to discuss ISP pedagogy could be included.

18


Responses from the administrator survey both challenged and supported the current

practice of administrative and faculty co-chairs, with 6 reporting it is working, 7

reporting it isn‘t, and 2 not responding.

Three administrators supported continuing the co-chair model and one suggested an

administrator at the dean level.

Administrator responses were also mixed regarding the Integrative Studies Program

Advisory Board (ISPAB) and the Integrative Studies Program Council (ISPC). Some felt

the current governing structure is fine; some think both should be phased out and a new

governing body be created.


Simplify the program structure.

Create the opportunities for more inclusiveness and integration across academic

disciplines/departments.

Create more flexibility in the process of integration of ISP courses into the majors.

Revise the governance mechanism to ensure accountability and clarity in the

administration of the program.

Evaluate the designated position of the Senate liaison to the ISP Advisory Board.

19

ISP Review Task Force Report on Communication

Background

The Integrative Studies Program Advisory Council has recognized the need for a

communications strategy since 2009. At that time they discussed the possible creation of a

―communications team‖ who would be responsible for contact with chairs, as well as tenure-

track and adjunct faculty. They also discussed the need to revise the ISP web page and word

press pages. In May, 2010, the Strategic Plan for 2010-2013 focused on the work of

communicating the mission and values of the program, from revision of the web page to

completion of manuals for chairs and instructors, to podcasts and contact with unions and

department chairs. In August, 2010, the ISP Council ―agreed that a major priority and goal is

communication,‖ focusing particularly on ―outcomes, syllabi and assignments.‖

In January, 2011, the ISP Manual entitled ―Teaching in the Integrative Studies Program‖ was

published in hard copy and sent to all faculty—both tenure-track and adjunct—teaching in the

ISP. In February, 2011, the manual was sent electronically to the entire college, excluding

students and physical plant staff. As of November, 2011, the ISP webpage was revised and

updated.

*Notes of minutes of ISP Council meetings: October 26, 2009; May, 2010; August 30, 2010


A review of data from the faculty and student surveys, the Student Affairs and Academic Affairs

staff reports, the Davis reports submitted by the ISP administrators, and additional documents

(letters) submitted by individual campus members indicates clearly that the communication goals

as outlined above by the ISP Council have not yet been met.

A key issue for students, faculty, and support staff alike was the perception of a ―failure to

communicate‖ clearly all essential aspects of the ISP—whether in terms of the purpose for the

students taking ISP courses, the process by which a student moved through the program, or the

necessary support and assessment feedback needed by faculty to create and teach an outcomes

based program. The language of the program seemed to be a major stumbling block for

everyone: its multiple prefixes, its multiple outcomes in all categories, and the absence of any

coherent communication plan to explain it all. All groups who provided feedback to the task

force were more focused on what they didn‘t know and couldn‘t understand about the ISP than

what, if anything, had been communicated clearly and effectively.

What should be especially noted here is how many faculty responded to multiple questions on

the survey with ―Don‘t know.‖ This high percentage alone points to a lack of effective

communication between ISP leadership and the campus community.

In the responses to what people liked about the program, there were no comments appreciating or

even noting how effectively the program has been communicated to the campus, though there

were several isolated comments from faculty members saying that ―we had frequent meetings to

discuss what we need to do differently‖; ―a couple of adjunct meetings have helped me better

understand the process‖; and ―this (referring to the Task Force) open dialogue was a start.‖

20



From students

Most students find Orientation does a good job of explaining the program to them; they

get its application to their first and second years; they see its relevance.

Once explained to them, the majority of students seemed to find the program ―easy to

understand‖ and workable once they make the effort.

From faculty

Language emphasizes a focus on real-world skills.

Faculty workshops have conveyed some important information.

A majority of administrators use and understand the ISP Manual; a few would feel

comfortable referring faculty to it for instruction.


From students

After Orientation happens (where students learn about ISP for first time), no institutional

place or person explains the program to students as they take courses in first and second

year. Advisors have limited knowledge; professors generally focus on major. Peers are

major source of ―guidance‖ through the program.

ITW and IQL are explained by faculty of those courses; Perspectives faculty might or

might not put outcomes of ISP on syllabus but few go back to refer to them during the

semester.

After declaration of major, students receive no context for understanding why upper level

courses in ISP are required. So these courses are considered mostly ―obstacles‖ to

completion of the major and progress to graduation.

Language of prefixes and requirements lacks clarity, and thus seems to lack meaning.

―What is an ‗I‘ anyway?‖

Faculty don‘t explain the program language as ―levels‖ or ―skills‖ or ―outcomes‖; so no

clear understanding of whole program and its ―benefits‖ or ―relevance‖ to student.

From faculty

Language of the program is bureaucratic,‖ gobbledygook,‖ jargon, overwhelming in its

complications, not user-friendly. Because there are too many things to keep in focus,

focus gets lost and communication is impossible.

Website is hard to access, not user-friendly, not cohesive.

ISP Manual is not an effective tool for understanding ISP and communicating it.

Opportunities for understanding the program are limited, especially for adjuncts who

can‘t be on campus for extra meetings every day. Informational sessions don‘t happen or

happen at times when many faculty cannot attend.

No one is responsible—Chairs? Deans? Coordinators?—for explaining the program, so it

doesn‘t get explained, especially to new faculty and adjuncts who step into these courses

without clear sense of their purpose or overall connection to college mission. Who are

the ISP leaders?

21

Program is too ―codified,‖ restrictive and extensive—leaving some faculty to feel

excluded from participation.

Explanations of assessment rubrics are complicated; they do not seem to justify the

complexity of the instruments.

Assessment feedback for individual faculty is not communicated to them, so the process

feels pointless because faculty can‘t benefit from it in their individual courses.

ISP changes in policy and program plan do not get communicated effectively to other

policy bodies on campus, like chairs and the Senate.

Departments are not consulted as fully as they should be, especially in terms of course

offerings that may affect their own curriculum (e.g. interdisciplinary courses).


Despite their role in advising, staff have not been consistently or intentionally advised of

ISP and its purpose and process.

Knowledge of the ISP Manual is minimal; it doesn‘t seem to be generally available to

staff who do advising.

Website does not communicate the program clearly.

There is no clear map/information source that tells staff what their role can be in helping

students navigate the ISP.

There is no site where staff can offer their skills, experience, knowledge as resources for

faculty teaching ISP courses—e.g. space on the webpage.


There were many recommendations from all groups about how to communicate the program

more clearly. They ranged from the many suggestions to make the program itself tighter,

smaller, less complicated to creating an all campus communication plan with easy access for

everyone.

From students

Create a long-term plan (like certain majors have) to help students coordinate ISP classes

with major classes.

Create a short (1-2 page) document accessible to all constituencies explaining ISP

purpose and process.

Provide specific ISP training to advisors, staff, faculty who will guide students through

program.

Simplify the language of ISP to eliminate ambiguity and confusion and clarify the

process.

Stress the importance of the program to students before they start at KSC (Admissions?),

through Orientation, to senior year.

Direct ISP faculty to explain all appropriate and relevant ISP components of their course

to students and continue to stress them throughout semester.

From faculty

Simplify the language of the program—both curricular and assessment.

Create clear guidelines and expectations.

22

Create ―cohesive blueprint‖ of program to communicate to students and faculty.

Create cohesive website.

Make campus-wide communication from ISP leaders a regular event; maybe use faculty

meetings.

Develop instruction models/presentations and opportunities for instruction in program.

Use departments to offer guidance in goals of program and applicability to individual

faculty.

Communicate assessment information to faculty in user-friendly way.


Create a comprehensive communications plan accessible to prospective students and

parents, current students, faculty and staff.

Use the governance structure to create a faculty position that focuses on communication

with the campus.

Develop a short pamphlet, brochure or reference sheet that provides basic information in

casual and user-friendly language.

Create on-line resource ―clearinghouse‖ where staff can learn about courses, topics,

issues being taught in ISP curriculum; where staff can ―catalogue‖ their own skills to

offer as resources to ISP faculty

Recommendations by the ISP Task Force

All groups—faculty, students, staff and other constituencies--are asking in different ways for

clarity, instruction and information about the ISP.

Simplify the language of the program to make it user-friendly.

Bring departments into planning process for instruction in ISP for all faculty—tenure-

track and adjunct. Multiple faculty development workshops have been offered over the

years; earlier ones in some areas were well attended (see Davis reports); more recently,

others have been cancelled due to lack of attendance.

Get faculty into regular open conversations about pedagogy in ISP and find a way to

communicate those notes more directly and immediately to the campus. (e.g. The ISP

retreat on January 13, 2011 generated a document that was sent to some faculty, but there

was no follow-up. The May 2011 meetings on the Perspectives component of the

program also generated a significant document that was sent to all faculty, but without

follow-up). Make these important conversations part of a campus dialogue.

Encourage departments to create an ISP planning sheet for students in their major.

If possible, create a single generic ISP planning sheet for students that they receive before

registration (distinct from what is incorporated into their program planning evaluation

document on their MyKSC account).

23

Create direct on-line access to the ISP with a link from the KSC home page (Currently

the ISP is absent from both the home page and the Academics home page); keep the ISP

web page current (Several sites on the ISP home page are blank). Make the ISP Manual

user-friendly.

Communicate assessment results to individual faculty teaching in the ISP in a timely

fashion and with concrete information for their use in improving their courses.

24

ISP Review Task Force Report on Implementation

Background and context of the implementation of the ISP

From September 2005 through Spring 2006, the General Education Committee worked to

develop an outcomes-based program to replace the old General Education Program. Numerous

meetings were held for all campus constituencies, and by early 2006 consensus was reached

regarding the outcomes, the governance structure, the overlying principles and the actual design

of the program – as it stands today.

* See end of this report for full description of the ISP and the implementation/assessmentplan.

Plans for the implementation of the program were developed in Fall 2005 as part of the College‘s

successful application for Davis Foundation funding. The proposal required a four year plan that

included the design, development, implementation and assessment of courses in the proposed

program. These plans included institutes and workshops for faculty development and training.

That planning document is included as an appendix to this section. The initial four-year plan also

served as a blueprint for course development through 2010-11.

The early implementation activities included Davis institutes for faculty development for ITW-

101 and later, IQL-101. Shorter duration workshops were held for the Perspectives area courses,

and all faculty participants (tenure-track and adjunct) received stipends for participating.

On April 19, 2006, the new Integrative Studies Program (ISP) was approved by the College

Senate. In 2007 the ISP was implemented.

The ISP continued to offer faculty development workshops and round tables through 2009-10,

and although the early events were well attended, campus wide participation declined to such a

low level that recent events were cancelled.

Based on our recent Faculty Survey, those workshops and associated development opportunities

were effective, as a significant percentage of faculty respondents indicated that they felt prepared

to teach in the ISP.

* See table at the end of this section for the timeline developed in Fall 2005 for the

implementation of the (then) proposed revision to General Education. This was renamed the ISP.


The ISP curriculum is primarily taught by adjunct faculty. This cohort teaches nearly 70% of the

ISP courses. This means that the rigorous, developmentally graduated, and cumulative

curriculum has been placed in the hands of non-benefited employees who are not fully integrated

into the institution. Many tenure-track faculty equate ISP with adjunct faculty. Some

departments associate new ISP courses with hiring new adjuncts.

The number of adjuncts has increased since the inception of the ISP in 2006. Some new adjuncts

report being hired less than one month before the semester starts. The number of full time

25

adjuncts with 12 credits or more, many of whom make their living teaching primarily ISP, has

grown significantly since the start of the ISP.

The implementation of ISP by adjuncts has had mixed results. Students find that the program

has been implemented well on some levels, ranking critical thinking, reading, and writing as a

success while not giving the same high marks to quantitative literacy. At the same time, the

reliance on adjunct faculty, most without terminal degree status, has been cited as an issue by

NEASC. For its part, the administration has drastically cut back on the full-time adjuncts, a

process that began in earnest in 2011 and has accelerated in 2012. Many on campus have voiced

concern over cuts to full-time adjuncts, seeing such measures as potentially jeopardizing the

integrity of the ISP.

Finally, the large number of faculty responses on the faculty survey that indicate ―No opinion‖ is

disturbing, especially since a majority indicated that they teach in ISP and over one half of

respondents teach in ISP every semester.



Respondents to the Student Survey indicated that they felt that their ISP courses assisted

them in meeting the core skills outcomes.

They also indicated that the core skills played a significant role in their overall

educational experience at Keene State College. Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and

Writing were rated as the most significant skills.

There seems to be a feeling among students that ITW-101 and the Perspectives and

Interdisciplinary areas are successful components of the ISP. Students also noted that

they valued the II courses.

Many respondents to the Faculty Survey indicated that they felt prepared to teach to the

ISP outcomes and that based on their experience, ISP courses lead to enhanced student

learning outcomes.


The Faculty Survey contained numerous references to the fact that the majority of

courses in the ISP are taught by adjunct faculty. It was clearly stated that the major

problem is not the quality of the adjunct faculty, but rather the percentage of students that

are taught by adjunct faculty. Dr. Netzhammer stated that adjuncts teach 45% of our

courses, but teach 55% of our student credit hours. This includes adjuncts that do not

teach in the ISP, thus the percentage of ISP student credit hours generated by adjunct

faculty is even higher than the 55% of total student credit hours. Concerns about the

proportion of courses taught by adjunct faculty were also raised in the NEASC

Accreditation report.

IQL-101 came under criticism both for its inability to ―deliver‖ successful attainment of

the Student Learning Outcomes and for the structure of the course.

Student comments indicate a concern with the offerings of upper-level ISP courses in

terms of areas, disciplines, and topics, as well as the total number of seats available.

26

There was a thread in most of the surveys that raised the issue of what is integrated in the

Integrative Studies Program – at present, it is skills, not a broad overarching concept.

This inconsistency is also apparent with the current (unassessed) Perspectives Outcomes.

Perceived Success and Challenge

There was a bimodal distribution of faculty comments regarding the Interdisciplinary

courses, with some faculty describing these courses as a key component in an integrative

curriculum, and a similar population questioning the value of II courses and the

qualificationss of the faculty to teach them.


From Students

More choice in upper-level ISP course offerings,

More seats available in upper-level ISP courses,

Fewer ISP requirements, and

Greater application of major courses to the ISP requirements.

From Faculty

Broader acceptance of Perspectives courses from departments outside the ―traditional‖

arts and sciences providers,

Greater clarity in the assessment process and the outcomes assessed,

True integration in the ISP,

A commitment to maintaining smaller class sizes for ISP courses in order to effectively

develop student learning outcomes


Address the issue of who delivers the ISP coursework. This is critical from both an

internal and external perspective. There are many models used by other academic

institutions to address this issue

(e.g. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/teachertenure.htm ).

Review and perhaps redesign the IQL-101 course model. Reconsider the current parallel

process with ITW-101.

Encourage greater emphasis on Quantitative Reasoning in Perspectives and

Interdisciplinary Courses.

Meet with all campus constituencies regarding development of a broader Perspectives

outcome, thus allowing all ISP courses to contribute toward a larger integrating theme or

small set of themes.

Work with departments to solidify the links between skill development in the ISP and in

the major. This would help address the concerns that ISP courses seem to be a distraction

from the major.

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/teachertenure.htm

27

The ISP design is a 44 credit program as summarized below.

The Program Every Keene State College student will complete a total of 44 credits as follows including a minimum of two

courses (8 credits) at the 300 or 400 level in residence.

Foundations: two courses (8 credits)

Thinking and Writing: ITW101

Quantitative Literacy: IQL101

Developing Perspectives and Breadth of Knowledge: eight courses (32 credits)

Arts and Humanities: one course each from four different disciplines (16 Credits)

o Two courses in the Humanities: IH(dept) 100-400

o One course in the Fine and Performing Arts: IA(dept) 100-400

o One additional course in the Arts or Humanities: IH(dept) or IA(dept) 100-400

Natural and Social Sciences - four courses from four different disciplines (16 Credits)

o Two courses in the Natural Sciences - IN(dept) 100-400

o Two courses in the Social Sciences - IS(dept) 100-400

Making Connections: one course (4 Credits)

Integrating Modes of Inquiry: One course (4 credits) in Interdisciplinary Studies - II (dept) 100-400

Details of the Program can be found in the ISP Manual ( http://isp.keenecommons.net)

The ISP is designed as an outcomes based program with three sets of outcomes as summarized below.

Skills outcomes

1. Writing

2. Critical Reading

3. Critical Thinking

4. Creative Thinking

5. Quantitative Literacy

6. Information Literacy

7. Critical Dialog

8. Media Fluency

Details of the specific Student Learning Outcomes can be found in the ISP Manual (http://isp.keenecommons.net )

Perspectives Outcomes

Disciplinary Perspectives

Students will be able to:

1. Articulate an understanding of representative theories in the natural and social sciences.

2. Explore language use, linguistic forms, and language‘s ability to change society and ourselves.

3. Distinguish and assess the impact that knowledge and methodology in the natural and social sciences have

on our understanding of self, society and environment.

4. Critically and creatively engage in the aesthetic and intellectual components of the fine and performing

arts.

5. Articulate the ways that the arts and humanities shape, change, provoke, and represent our world and our

perception of the world.

6. Understand and interpret diverse evidence about past societies and cultures.

7. Understand how the scientific method differs from other modes of inquiry and ways of knowing.

8. Evaluate diverse approaches to the study of history and their relationship to power, privilege and

difference.



28

9. Use and understand the power of mathematics, statistics, and qualitative analysis to represent and

investigate ideas and evidence, as well as evaluate data dependent arguments.

10. Analyze a creative text within its cultural, aesthetic, historical, and intellectual contexts.

11. Identify the values and concerns expressed in creative works.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Students will be able to:

1. Cross disciplinary boundaries to reveal new patterns and connections that reframe knowledge.

2. Analyze the assumptions and actions of society from multiple perspectives.

3. Examine national and international issues through artistic, philosophical, cultural, scientific, technological,

economic, social and political lenses.

4. Assess their own roles and responsibilities as members of diverse communities.

Integrative Outcomes 1. Diversity

2. Ethics

3. Global Issues

4. Social and Environmental Engagement

29

Implementation and assessment plan

Date 9/14/2005 Pre approval of new program, pre renaming it ISP.

DI – Davis Institute Coordinated by the GEP KSCS – Keene State College Senate O –Offer on regular basis

FAC – Faculty A – Assess P – Pilot

FYS – First Year Seminar –Red shading C – Course Development cycle - Subscripts refer to successive DI cycles

GEPC General Education Program Committee D – Develop

TASK

WHO TIMELINE

F

05

W

06

SP

06

SU

06

F

06

W

07

SP

07

SU

07

F

07

W

08

SP

08

SU

08

F

08

W

09

SP

09

SU

09

FA

09

Define General Education

Program Outcomes

GEPC ●

Approve defined outcomes KSCS ●

Invite faculty participation in pilot

FYS Institute

GEPC ●

Design new General Education

Program

GEPC

● ●

Approve new General Education

Program

KSCS ●

Develop course rubric & topics

FYS Institute

DI D

A A A A A A

Offer FYS FAC P

P O O O O O

Invite proposals for Davis

Institutes for Integrative Teaching

and Learning (DI)

GEPC C1

C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 C4

Hold proposed Institutes including

new topics.

DI

D1 D2 D3

Pilot or offer new courses

developed during

Davis Institutes

FAC

P1 P1 O1 O1 O1,2

P2 P2 P3

Assess and revise courses

developed in subsequent DI

GEPC

A1 A1 A1, 2 A1, 2 A1,2

30

ISP Review Task Force Report on Assessment

Background and context of the assessment of the ISP

A considerable amount of research and discussion was done to establish a comprehensive

program for assessing the ISP. ―The overriding purpose of assessment is to understand how

educational programs are working and to determine whether they are contributing to student

growth and development…We need more systematic information about how much and how well

students are actually learning… If assessment is to move from a minimal effort-minimal impact

mode, faculty must develop the understanding that assessment is not a hostile intrusion into

academic life but rather a critical scholarly activity5.‖

When developing the assessment plan for the ISP, KSC developed and followed these

guidelines:

1. Identify outcomes, criteria and standards

2. Identify in which courses outcomes are being addressed

3. Determine methods to be used to assess student learning

4. Determine who will be assessed and what will be assessed

5. Establish a schedule

6. Determine who will assess and interpret results

7. Determine how and with whom information will be shared

8. Determine how changes have impacted future results.

―We realized that we did not have to assess every general education outcome in every student

every year, that a well-designed plan systematically addresses all outcomes in a multi-year

cycle.‖

This is a summary of the current assessment process6:

1. All faculty teaching an ISP course identify those ISP outcomes (at least one intellectual,

one integrative, and one perspective or interdisciplinary) that they can realistically

address and assess in the course7.

2. All students enrolled in an ISP course are told that they must submit their work to

Blackboard for the purpose of programmatic assessment.

3. Students' artifacts are randomly sampled by the ISP Assessment Coordinator within one

week after the final day of spring semester.

4. Faculty teams participate in a norming session.

5. After that session each member assesses 20 assignments using the program rubrics. One

member submits a report to the ISP Assessment Committee.

6. That report is distributed to all faculty and results and recommendations are discussed

among the faculty cohorts teaching in the program.

7. After every two cycles of assessment of a specific ISP program outcome, based on the

information from assessment reports, the ISP program outcome and the rubrics used for

assessing it are reviewed and revised.

5 Rancourt, Ann: "Assessing Academic/Intellectual Skills in Keene State College's Integrative Studies

Program," Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Vol 1, No 1, Fall 2010, pp. 1-57 6 http://www.keene.edu/assessment/ISPAssessment.cfm

7 ISP manual, p. 5

31

8. Updated ISP outcomes and rubrics are communicated with ISP faculty at the end of

spring semester, so they can be adopted in syllabi for the upcoming semesters.

This is being done each year with the ITW and IQL courses and with these ISP intellectual skills:

Critical Thinking, Writing, Reading, Quantitative Reading, Information Literacy, and

Media/Technology Fluency. Creative Thinking and Critical Dialogue outcomes have been

developed but not yet assessed. The Perspectives, Integrative, and Interdisciplinary outcomes

have been developed but not assessed.


Comments also came from the various assessment meetings over the years, including the May,

2011 meeting where faculty were invited to talk about Perspectives courses.


Faculty identification of learning outcomes in ISP classes is about 90%.

Students have gotten used to submitting artifacts for their classes.

Compared to five years ago, faculty know about outcomes and see ISP as a program

rather than individual courses (this is different from the old Gen Ed model)

We have revised most of the outcomes and rubrics at least once.

There is a central website for people to get information about the ISP and about the

process for assessing the ISP http://www.keene.edu/isp/ and

http://www.keene.edu/assessment/ISPAssessment.cfm


The challenges have been organized into eight categories.

Overwhelming

When teaching ISP courses, these are the outcomes that faculty need to consider. The

numbers in parentheses are the number of outcomes identified under each group.

o ITW faculty focus on critical thinking (3), information literacy (3), reading (3),

and writing (4).

o IQL faculty focus on critical dialogue (7), writing (1), critical thinking (2),

information literacy (3), media fluency (1), reading (1), and quantitative literacy

(6).

o Perspectives faculty are required to identify those Perspectives outcomes (11) that

can be realistically addressed and assessed in the course.

o Interdisciplinary faculty are required to identify those Interdisciplinary outcomes

(4) that can be realistically addressed and assessed in the course.

o When teaching any ISP course, faculty are required to examine the intellectual

skills and select specific outcomes that can be realistically addressed and assessed

in the course. The instructor can choose from the following : creative thinking

(13), critical dialogue (18), critical reading (5), critical thinking (3), information

literacy (9), media fluency (4), quantitative reasoning (4), and writing (5).

o When teaching any ISP course, faculty are also required to identify at least one of

the Integrative Reasoning Outcomes: diversity (2), ethics (2), global issues (5),

and social and environmental engagement (3).

http://www.keene.edu/isp/

http://www.keene.edu/assessment/ISPAssessment.cfm

32

Not knowing where to find information

o There is an ISP website but it is not readily accessible. Many faculty don‘t know

about it or how to find it.

o There is an ISP Manual. However, it is not perceived as user-friendly by those

who don‘t regularly teach ISP courses.

Confusing

o Many find the ISP Manual instructions about assessment confusing, partly

because there are so many outcomes and partly because the assessment process is

complex, with many parts.

o The challenge of students downloading artifacts and faculty knowing how to do

this.

Lack of useful feedback to faculty about how the outcomes are being met

o Some faculty could not find the report that is submitted every year. Other faculty

felt the reports are reductionist, e.g. the uselessness of reducing assessment to

percentages of students meeting expectations. It was suggested that an executive

summary of the report be shared.

o Some faculty said that they would like feedback about how their students did on

the assessment.

Lack of accountability

o The percentage of students in ISP courses who submit artifacts is lower than

acceptable.

Lack of validity of the whole process

o Many of the rubrics are reductive; they enable us to get numbers but those

numbers are not useful.

o The vagueness in language in outcomes and rubrics makes the interpretation

unnecessarily subjective, e.g., sufficient, adequate, most, many, examines an

issue…within a broader context.

o Many rubrics are unassessable.

Lack of perceived usefulness of the whole process

o This is a widespread perception and makes the process feel like busy work

o Several people mentioned that this then takes energy and time away from work on

pedagogy which might be more useful.

The program has never been completely assessed.

o We haven‘t successfully revised the Perspectives or Integrative outcomes, so we

haven‘t been able to assess them.

o We have revised the Interdisciplinary outcomes but haven‘t assessed them.

o We haven‘t developed assessable outcomes for Creative Thinking and Critical

Dialogue.

33


Simplify (mentioned multiple times)

The assessment process needs to be reworked (mentioned multiple times)

More feedback, written reports about submitted student work.

More support, especially for IQL courses.

Meetings of small groups of ISP instructors to share work activities and ideas.

Revitalize Perspectives courses so that they contribute to the integrative component.

Get everyone who is teaching ITW, IQL, IH, etc., together and reach a common

understanding about the outcomes.

There were a number of specific suggestions, e.g., assessment within disciplines,

assessment in context, balance standardization with choice, portfolio-based

assessment, qualitative as well as quantitative data.

Recommendations by the ISP Task Force

Revise the assessment process so that there is faculty buy-in and understanding of the

process. We need to have a program that gives useful information to faculty and that

translates assessment results into program improvement, specifically what we do in the

classrooms. There are many ways in which this might be accomplished. Two are outlined

below.

Simplify the assessment process by developing a reasonable number of assessable outcomes

and by creating rubrics that work across disciplines.

Retain the goal of an assessment process that will assess the overall program and that will

work toward having an Integrative Studies Program

In this case, there would need to be:

an education process so that faculty better understand the basics of program assessment,

a campus-wide dialogue to generate buy-in,

a revision of the current process that is more manageable and understandable,

a means to ensure accountability.

Revise the KSC website so that the ISP appears on the Academic home page. Include the

artifact submission process on this page.

Revise the ISP Manual to make it more user-friendly. For example: Create a cover page with

the actual procedures a faculty member must do when teaching an ISP course.

Possible model: ―If you are teaching a Perspectives course, read the Disciplinary Outcomes

(p. 15), the Integrative Reasoning Outcomes (p. 18) and the Intellectual Skills outcomes (pp.

16 – 17.) Determine the outcomes you believe you can realistically address and assess in the

course. Students will be required to submit an artifact for each of these outcomes. You must

include at least one Perspectives Outcome, one Integrative Reasoning outcome, and one

Intellectual Skills outcome.”

34

Address the concern by faculty that there is no feedback. This might be accomplished by

discussing the ISP annual assessment report at a faculty meeting, or through a summary that

has bullet points.

Provide additional opportunities for faculty to discuss the connections between pedagogy and

assessment. Ultimately pedagogy and assessment go hand in hand. For whatever reasons, in

the implementation of the Integrative Studies Program, they seem to have become separated.

Develop procedures that will enable any instructor, especially those new to the college, to be

able to understand the process and his/her responsibilities. Technically, any instructor

teaching a Perspectives course should ―review existing course outcomes with respective

department chairperson.‖ However, this is often not realistic, especially for an adjunct who is

new to the college and teaching just one course.

Integrative Studies Program Review Task Force Final Report ... · Integrative Studies Program...

Documents

Transcript of Integrative Studies Program Review Task Force Final Report ... · Integrative Studies Program...