2026 Update on Assessment of General Education

Director of General Education, Leigh Shaw

Executive Summary

This report updates the assessment of General Education through the analysis of program-level student learning outcomes, or GELOs, as evident in Signature Assignments (SAs), which require students to integrate and apply course content with intellectual tools and social responsibility for a specified audience.

Assessment Methodology

  • GELO Framework: GELO 1 (Content Knowledge) is assessed biennially by departments. GELOs 2–4 (Intellectual Tools, Responsibility to Self and Others, and Connected & Applied Learning) are assessed via SAs.
  • Data Collection: The Director of General Education, Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), and faculty teams have reviewed SAs from >330 Gen Ed courses and ~3,300 students.
  • Reliability: The assessment process demonstrates strong average interrater reliability, affirming consistent coding among faculty reviewers.

Key Findings: Full Student Sample

The full sample includes 3,270 students, primarily consisting of CE students, freshmen & sophomores.

  • Overall Achievement: 77% of students achieved the GELOs. Achievement was highest in GELO 3 (Responsibility to Self and Others) at 79%.
  • Program Progression: Students completing the Gen Ed program (22+ credits) earned significantly higher GELO scores (81%) compared to those at the beginning or middle of their coursework (76%). This improvement was independent of a student's academic status or total college credits earned.
  • Equity Analysis: There were no significant differences in GELO achievement across ethnic groups. However, equity gaps persist in overall GPA and final course grades, where Caucasian students performed higher than Hispanic students.

Key Findings: Campus vs. Concurrent Enrollment (CE) Subsample

A specific comparison of 853 students in courses taught both on-campus and via concurrent enrollment revealed a notable disconnect between grades and outcome achievement.

  • GELO Achievement Gap: Campus students significantly outperformed CE students in overall GELO achievement (89% vs. 82%). CE students specifically struggled with GELO 3 (Responsibility…) and GELO 4 (Connected & Applied Learning). In addition, students with higher GELO achievement scores have taken fewer CE courses.
  • Grade Disconnect: Despite lower GELO scores, CE students had significantly higher GPAs and final Gen Ed course grades than their campus counterparts.
  • Implications: These findings suggest a potential for grade inflation within CE courses and indicate that GELO achievement is distinct from final course grades.

Conclusion

The 2026 assessment affirms that Signature Assignments effectively assess and promote Gen Ed program learning outcomes. While the program appears to develop the learning outcomes as students progress, data highlight a need to address the performance and grading disparities between on-campus and CE offerings to ensure curriculum and assessment standardization.

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS

GELO 1, content knowledge, is assessed through the biennial assessment process in which departments provide assessment data for each of their Gen Ed courses that are reviewed by faculty serving on the General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee (a standing Faculty Senate Committee). The Office of Institutional Effectiveness coordinates the process. GELOs 2-4 are assessed by examining signature assignments (SAs), which require students to integrate and apply course content (GELO 4) to address an issue related to personal or social responsibility (GELO 3) through an intellectual tool (GELO 2). SA assessment is performed by multiple volunteer faculty teams working with the Director of General Education and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness.

At the end of fall 2025, the Director and OIE collaborated to select ~30 SAs from the spring and fall semesters of 2025 for assessment of student achievement on GELOs 2-4. OIE intentionally pulled 15 SAs from an on-campus course and a concurrent enrollment (CE) course for more direct comparisons of student performance. The Director of General Education applied rubrics derived from the operational definitions of the GELOs to each SA. OIE then extracted from Canvas the SAs from ~10 students in each course. One of the five teams of three faculty reviewers coded each student on the rubric in January 2026. Faculty review teams were blinded to whether students were in concurrent enrollment or on campus.

 

This annual update reviews SA assessments from 2018 through 2025, and focuses on the performance of a growing subsample of concurrent enrollment (CE) and campus students in the same GE courses. To date, dozens of faculty reviewers have volunteered and been trained as coders, the SAs from more than 330 Gen Ed courses representing every core and breadth area and WSU courses have been reviewed, and the SAs of ~3300 students (including CE) have been assessed. This year, there was strong average interrater reliability (~89%) amongst three reviewers for the three GELOs. Average interrater reliability has been consistently good (85-90%) every year, which affirms that reviewers are consistent in their coding.

FINDINGS

FULL SAMPLE: DEMOGRAPHICS

The full sample includes 3270 students, of which the majority (76%) are earlier college students (13% CE, 33% freshmen, 30% sophomores) and the minority (24%) are more advanced students (14% juniors, 10% seniors). Students’ average overall GPA is 3.29, prior GE credits earned is 16, and final grade in the Gen Ed course is 1.63, where 1=A, 2=B, and so on.

Overall, students’ GELO achievement scores are positively correlated with their final Gen Ed class grade (r=.19, p<.001), and their overall WSU GPA (r=.17, p < .001), independent of their academic status (i.e., CE, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) and number of prior Gen Ed credits. Analyses suggest that students who better learn course content knowledge, as reflected by their grades in Gen Ed and other courses, also tend to demonstrate general Gen Ed learning skills, independent of their background and experience. Results suggest that SAs assess skills related to student learning.

FULL SAMPLE: GELO Achievement by GEN ED CREDIT GROUP

Analyses also explored differences in GELO achievement scores based on student status in the Gen Ed program. Students were grouped according to the number of Gen Ed credits completed in previous semesters:

  • Students beginning their Gen Ed coursework, who had earned 6 or fewer Gen Ed credits (N=1111 or 35% of total sample, of which 77% are CE or freshmen)
  • Students in the middle of their Gen Ed coursework, who had earned 7-21 Gen Ed credits (N=1176 or 36% of total sample, of which 76% are freshman and sophomores)
  • Students completing the Gen Ed coursework, who had earned 22 or more Gen Ed credits (N=920 or 29% of total sample, of which 93% are sophomores, juniors and seniors)

The majority of students (>70%) achieved the GELOs. Specifically, 77% of students achieved the GELOs. More students achieved GELO 3 (M = 79%) than GELO 2 (M = 77%) and GELO 4 (M = 76%). GELO achievement scores varied by Gen Ed Credit Group. Students in the completing (81%) group earned significantly higher scores than students in the middle (76%) and beginning (76%) groups. In addition, students in the completing group earned significantly higher scores on GELO 2 (81%), GELO 3 (83%), and GELO 4 (78%) than students in the middle (75%, 76%, and 76%, respectively) and beginning (77%, 79%, and 73%, respectively) groups. Differences between Gen Ed Credit Groups on overall GELO achievement and achievement of GELO 2, GELO 3, and GELO 4 are statistically significant independent of students’ academic status (i.e., CE, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). This suggests that differences in GELO achievement are not due to the completion of more college credits. Students’ GELO achievement scores are significantly and positively correlated with their overall GPA (r=0.17) and institutional GPA (r=0.19), as well as their prior GE credits (r=.05).

A significantly lower percentage of students in the beginning (57%) as compared to the middle (62%) and completing (63%) Gen Ed group achieved all GELOs (i.e., met threshold on each GELO). While not significantly different, the trend is for a lower percentage of students in the completing (8%) than in the middle (10%) and beginning (11%) Gen Ed groups to achieve no GELOs (i.e., failed to meet threshold on each GELO). Thus, students who are completing Gen Ed are more likely than students in the beginning or middle of Gen Ed to achieve all GELOs and to not achieve no GELOs.

FULL SAMPLE: GELO Achievement by ETHNIC GROUP

Students' performance on signature assignments was disaggregated to explore whether there are equity gaps in GELO achievement. To this end, students were classified as Caucasian (75%, N= 2417), Hispanic (13%, N=415), or other (12%, N=383). Analyses revealed no significant differences by ethnic group on the individual GELO or overall GELO achievement. There were no ethnic group differences in prior GE credits. However, there were ethnic group differences in overall and institutional GPA and final grade in the Gen Ed course. Caucasian students had a significantly higher overall (M=3.32) and institutional (M=3.33) GPA than Hispanic students (Ms=3.16 and 3.20, respectively). Caucasian students also had a higher final grade (M=1.60) than Hispanic students (M=1.73). Thus, while there are no equity gaps in overall GELO achievement or on the individual GELOs, there are equity gaps in overall GPA, institutional GPA, and final grade.

SUBSAMPLE: CE/Campus comparison DEMOGRAPHICS

For the past three assessment cycles, we have intentionally sampled the signature assignments (SAs) from general education courses taught both in concurrent enrollment (CE) and on campus. In 2023, we sampled the SAs from 13 courses taught in concurrent enrollment (CE) and on campus. The 2023 comparison sample totaled 254 students, of which 125 (49%) were CE and 129 (51%) were campus. The majority of the campus group were freshman (45%) and sophomores (34%), 12% were juniors, and 9% were seniors. Faculty reviewers were not blinded to whether students were in concurrent enrollment or on campus. In 2024, we sampled the SAs from 15 courses taught in CE and on campus. This comparison sample totaled 299 students, of which 143 (48%) were CE and 156 (52%) were campus. The majority of the campus group were freshman (39%) and sophomores (38%), 14% were juniors, and 9% were seniors. In 2025, we sampled the SAs from 15 courses taught in CE and on campus. This comparison sample totaled 300 students, of which 150 (50%) were CE and 150 (50%) were campus. The majority of the campus group were freshman (46%) and sophomores (40%), 9% were juniors, and 4% were seniors. Faculty reviewers in 2024 and 2025 were blinded to whether students were in concurrent enrollment or on campus.

 

The total CE/Campus subsample is 853 students. Because of unequal sample sizes, the status variable was dichotomized as CE (n=425) or Campus (n=428) for analyses. While 32% of the sample has taken 0 CE courses, 27% of the sample has taken 1-3 CE courses, 21% of the sample has taken 4-6 CE courses, and 19% has taken 7 or more CE courses. On average, students in the subsample have taken 3.45 CE courses with 10.36 CE credits earned. Note: not all CE courses are general education courses. Unlike in the full sample, students’ GELO achievement scores in the CE/Campus subsample are not correlated with their final Gen Ed class grade or their overall WSU GPA. Also, students’ GELO achievement scores are negatively related with the total number of CE courses taken and CE credits earned (r=-0.09, p=.01). Students with higher GELO achievement scores have taken fewer CE courses. These findings reveal an interesting disconnect between GELO achievement and course performance in the subsample, which may be evidence of grade inflation in CE courses.

SUBSAMPLE: GELO Achievement BY CE/CAMPUS STATUS

Analyses revealed a significant difference on overall GELO achievement by status. Campus students had significantly higher overall GELO achievement scores (89%) than CE students (82%). Analyses by GELO revealed a nearly significant (p=.06) status difference in achievement of GELO 2 (intellectual tools), and significant status differences in the achievement of GELOs 3 (responsibility to self and others) and 4 (connected & applied learning) favoring campus students. Campus students had higher achievement scores on GELO 2 (90%) and significantly higher achievement scores on GELOs 3 (89%) and 4 (88%) than CE students (86%, 83%, and 78%, respectively). Whereas the majority of students (>70%) achieved the GELOs, CE students struggled more than campus students in their ability to relate course content to issues of responsibility (GELO 3) and to integrate and apply course material (GELO 4) in the signature assignment.

 

A significantly higher percentage of CE students (6%) than campus students (3%) achieved no GELOs (i.e., failed to meet threshold on each GELO). By contrast, a significantly higher percentage of campus students (79%) than CE (70%) achieved all GELOs (i.e., met threshold on each GELO). Not surprisingly, campus students had significantly more Gen Ed credits (M=16.4) than CE students (M=5.4). CE students had significantly higher overall GPAs (M=3.55) than campus students (M=3.24). CE students also had significantly higher final grades in the Gen Ed course (M=1.48, where 1=A, 2=B, etc.) than campus students (M=1.60). Thus, campus students outperform CE students in GELO achievement (esp., GELOs 3 & 4) but CE students have higher overall GPAs and final grades in the Gen Ed course than their campus counterparts.

Conclusion

The data provide support for the claim that Gen Ed program outcomes are being effectively assessed and, perhaps, promoted by signature assignments. Student GELO achievement was reliably coded by volunteer faculty reviewers and related to academic outcomes (e.g., course grade, overall GPA) in the full sample. The majority of students (>70%) achieved the GELOs. Furthermore, there is a pattern of improvement in student GELO achievement (both their average and complete GELO achievement rate) among those beginning and completing the Gen Ed program, unrelated to their student status or credits earned in college. Additionally, students who are completing Gen Ed are significantly more likely than students in the beginning or middle of Gen Ed to achieve all GELOs and to not achieve no GELOs. Longitudinal evidence is needed to affirm that the improvement in GELO achievement can be attributed to students completing signature assignments and not to other factors (e.g., attrition).

 

There are no equity gaps in GELO achievement related to ethnicity. However, there are equity gaps in GPA and final grade that favor Caucasian over Hispanic students. Furthermore, there are gaps in GELO achievement related to status as either a concurrent enrollment (CE) or campus student. In a large sample gathered over three years and with reviewers blinded to where the course was taught, findings reveal that CE students have lower overall GELO achievement than campus students (82% vs. 89%), and specifically struggled in their ability to relate course content to issues of responsibility (GELO 3, 83% vs 89%) and to integrate and apply course material (GELO 4, 78% vs. 88%) in the SA, and yet they earned higher Gen Ed course grades and had a higher overall GPA. It is not entirely surprising that CE students have higher overall GPAs than campus students due to a selection bias: generally speaking, students must have a GPA >3.0 to participate in concurrent enrollment. It is surprising that CE students have higher Gen Ed course grades than campus students, who have higher GELO achievement. This finding suggests that when directly comparing the performance of CE and campus students in the same Gen Ed courses, achievement of GELOs is distinct from course grade and may provide evidence of grade inflation in CE courses. It is also intriguing that the data reveals that students with higher GELO achievement scores have taken fewer CE courses. Despite some recent efforts to standardize the curriculum and assessment in general education courses taught in CE, the implementation of general education courses and signature assignments in high schools via the CE program as compared to on campus via the traditional general education program seem to vary in important ways that are differentially reflected in GELO achievement and grades.