Faculty Member Responses to the Implementation of Common Student Learning Outcomes in General Education Courses in Kansas Public Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

In response to a call for quality in higher education (Banta, 2007; Bok, 2006; Roksa & Arum, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2006), an emphasis has been placed on learning outcomes and the assessment of student learning (Ewell & Wellman, 2007; Shavelson, 2007; Shulman, 2007). This quantitative cross-sectional descriptive survey research study was designed to provide insight on how faculty members at two and four-year public institutions in Kansas have responded to the implementation of common student learning outcomes in general education courses. Using the implementation of these learning outcomes as an innovation, the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ), originally developed by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1979), was adapted and used in this study. Responses from 195 faculty members were used to analyze the variables including stage categories of the SoCQ, the school type, the earliest year of implementation of common student learning outcomes, the importance of assessing student learning outcomes at the respondents’ institution, personal awareness of the Kansas Core Outcomes Group project, personal involvement with the Kansas Core Outcome Group project, and the primary method of assessment of student learning at the respondent’s institution. Significant interactions between some of the variables associated with this study, primarily with the SoCQ categories of self and impact were found. These two categories represented both ends of the spectrum of the SoCQ analysis. The self stage category represented those respondents who were not concerned or aware of the innovation and the impact stage category represented those who were very informed about the innovation and desire to improve it. Through additional analysis, a clear indication of the high importance of assessment of student learning at Kansas public higher education institutions was found. However, the reported personal involvement of faculty members with the Kansas Core Outcomes Group process was limited and varied between faculty members at two and four-year institutions. Further analysis should be completed to identify if faculty member perceptions about this innovation in Kansas public higher education institutions change over time. In addition, further analysis should be completed to investigate the impact of the assessment of common student learning outcomes in higher education.