educational program planning and assessment (2.b.1, 2.b.2 ... · course ¥ enhancement of career...

Standard Two — Educational Program and Its Effectiveness

Educational ProgramPlanning and Assessment(2.B.1, 2.B.2, 2.B.3)(www.weber.edu/assessment)

I. Purpose/Description

A recommendation contained in the 1994NWCCU report stated, "The assessment ofeducational effectiveness and retention needsto occur in a more coordinated, integrated,systematic, and focused manner." Since thattime, we have implemented systematic assess-ment of student learning outcomes across theDivision of Academic Affairs. The assessmentinformation in this section of the self-study isorganized by:

¥ Academic Programs¥ General Education and Other Required

Courses¥ Academic Centers¥ Continuing Education¥ Library

Assessment of Academic Programs(2.B., 2.A.3, 2.C.8)

Overview

Program Review

For more than 20 years, we have had in placeregular and systematic review of our academicprograms. At least once every five years, eachprogram is reviewed to identify program areasof strength and areas that need to beimproved. This review is either an internallydesigned process or is part of an externallydesigned professional accreditation review.Program review includes assessment of stu-dent learning outcomes, as well as an exami-nation of the program mission statement, cur-riculum, faculty and staff support and evalua-tion, student academic advising and enroll-ment patterns, library and equipment support,and strategic goals. Our program review

74

processes are described in more detail at pro-grams.weber.edu/assessment/wsu_prog_review_process.html. These review processes are inaccordance with NWCCU policy 2.2 onEducational Assessment.

Outcomes Assessment

In 1998-99, the Division of Academic Affairsbegan a systematic approach to documentingthe assessment of student learning outcomeswithin academic programs. This approach wasphased in over three years and approximatelyone-third of the academic programs startedtheir assessment process each year (1998-99,1999-2000, 2000-01).

During each of the three years of phase-in,individuals who were assigned the task ofcoordinating outcomes assessment within spe-cific programs were formed into campus-wideworking groups and worked collaborativelywith personnel from the Office of AcademicAffairs, the Teaching and Learning Forum,and the Office of Institutional Research toimplement a common model of assessing stu-dent learning outcomes. Faculty membershave made the determination of what and howto assess, and to assist them in designing andimplementing outcomes assessment proce-dures, the PresidentÕs Office made fundingavailable for those who wished to attendnational assessment conferences sponsored bythe American Association of Higher Education,Indiana University-Purdue University,Indianapolis, Association of American Collegesand Universities, and Alverno College.Approximately 100 faculty and staff haveattended national assessment conferencessince 1998.

Process

Academic programs followed a common out-comes assessment model which included theidentification of a mission statement, a list ofstudent learning outcomes, a curriculumgrid/map that identified where outcomes weretaught within specific courses, and an assess-ment plan. Of 69 academic programs, 91% (n =63) have completed these steps of the assess-ment model to date.

http://weber.edu/assessment

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/ProgramReview/ProgRev.htm

Standard Two — Educational Program and Its Effectiveness75

Once an assessment plan had been implement-ed and data collected, programs were asked tosubmit an annual report to the relevant deanand the Office of Academic Affairs. Amongother things, these reports identified thechanges that were made or were planned forthe future as a result of the collected data. Anoverwhelming majority of academic programs(n = 55, 80%) submitted an annual assessmentreport for 2002-03, and 56 programs (81%)have submitted more than one annual reportsince we began this process in 1998. A summa-ry of the status of implementation of theassessment model, by college, can be found inAppendix A, and a listing of the frequencywith which annual assessment reports havebeen submitted can be found in Appendix B.For actual program documents such as missionstatement, outcomes list, curriculum grid,assessment plan, annual assessment reports,see programs.weber.edu/assessment/wsu-aca-demic-departments.htm.)

Student Learning Outcomes

Student learning outcomes were identifiedacross all domains: cognitive, psychomotor,and affective. Table VII below summarizes theproportion of outcomes by domain and by college. (Note: These are approximate percent-ages as some outcomes address more than onedomain.)

Examples of outcomes for each of the domainsinclude:

Cognitive Outcomes

¥ Students will demonstrate basic knowledgeof political institutions. (Political Science)

¥ Students will demonstrate knowledge ofinterior design. (Interior DesignTechnology)

¥ Students will demonstrate knowledge ofstatistical methods, such as hypothesistesting and regression analysis, for prob-lem solving. (Economics)

¥ Students will demonstrate knowledge oftechniques in drawing, photography, anddigital media. (Visual Arts)

¥ Students will develop knowledge in threedisciplinary areas. (Bachelor of IntegratedStudies)

Psychomotor Outcomes

¥ Students will be able to design and set upan experiment, collect and analyze data,identify sources of error, interpret theirresult, and connect it to related areas ofchemistry. (Chemistry)

Areas within Academic Affairs

College of Applied Science & Technology

Cognitive

38%

Psychomotor

40%

Affective

22%

College of Arts & Humanities 34% 34% 32%

Goddard School of Business & Economics 50% 30% 20%

Moyes College of Education 57% 25% 18%

Dumke College of Health Professions 42% 26% 32%

College of Science 50% 30% 20%

College of Social & Behavioral Sciences 50% 40% 10%

Office of Academic Affairs (Bachelor of IntegratedStudies, Honors, First Year Experience)

74% 6% 20%

Average 54% 24% 22%

Standard 2: Table VII. Student Learning Outcomes by Domain

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/wsu-academic-departments.htm

Standard Two — Educational Program and Its Effectiveness 76

¥ Students will demonstrate competentmotor skills performance in a variety ofphysical activities. (Physical Education)

¥ Students will demonstrate the ability tobuild, install, program, operate, trou-bleshoot, analyze, and modify electronicsystems. (Computer and ElectronicsEngineering Technology)

¥ Students will demonstrate competency inskill areas by performing the technicalaspects of their selected fields. (Nursing)

¥ Students will demonstrate keyboard profi-ciency, competent conducting techniques,and performing competence in their majorarea. (Music)

Affective Outcomes

¥ Students will develop a sense of belongingto the WSU community. (First YearExperience)

¥ Students will demonstrate a commitmentto lifelong reading and learning, apprecia-tion of diverse literacy and intellectual her-itage, and appreciation of the liberal artstradition. (English)

¥ Students will demonstrate an informedappreciation of other cultures.(Anthropology)

¥ Students will foster interpersonal relation-ships with parents and agencies in thelarger community. (Family Studies)

¥ Students will demonstrate the ability toeffectively, confidentially, and sensitivelyconverse with patients and other non-labo-ratory personnel regarding laboratory testresults. (Clinical Laboratory Sciences)

Assessment Techniques

Student learning outcomes are measured withboth direct and indirect assessment techniques(a combined average of more than five tech-niques per program). An inventory of assess-ment strategies used, by college, can be foundin Table VIII on page 20.

Direct Assessment

¥ On average, each program uses approxi-mately three direct assessment methods;the range is 1.1 methods/program in theCollege of Social & Behavioral Sciences to6.6 methods/program in the College ofEducation.

¥ Direct assessment methods are more likelyto include locally prepared exams and stu-dent performance/presentations (used by63% and 49% of programs, respectively). Incontrast, oral exams are used only by theForeign Languages & LiteraturesDepartment in the College of Arts &Humanities.

¥ Nearly half of all programs include cap-stone/senior projects and commercially pre-pared exams (n =31, 45% each), and atleast one program in each college has off-campus internships/practicums for theirstudents. For both these methods, theCollege of Education has the highest pro-portion of programs that use them (sevenof eight, or 88% of programs).

¥ The College of Science was most likely toidentify "other" direct assessment strate-gies, including graduation grade pointaverages, grade distributions, laboratoryskills evaluation, and student research andcontest results.

¥ Pre-baccalaureate vocational programs inthe Colleges of Health Professions andApplied Science & Technology monitor,either departmentally or through ourCareer Services Center, state licensingexamination pass rates, as applicable, andjob placement rates of the studentsenrolled in these programs. (2.C.8)

Indirect Assessment

¥ On average, each program uses two indi-rect methods of assessment, with a rangefrom 0.75 methods/program to 3.7 meth-ods/program (College of Arts & Humanitiesand College of Science, respectively).

¥ Fifty-eight percent of programs use exitinterviews and 44% use alumni surveys to


indirectly measure the learning outcomesof their majors. In contrast, only 11 pro-grams (16%) use focus groups as an indi-rect assessment strategy.

¥ One of the "other" indirect assessmentstrategies used by the College of HealthProfessions is a patient satisfaction survey;in the College of Science, "other" indirectstrategies include textbook evaluation andcourse evaluations.

Results of Assessment andSubsequent Changes

Changes that have been made as a result ofoutcomes assessment within academic pro-grams have included both changes to enhanceour teaching and learning environment as wellas changes to the assessment process. Overall,modifications to enhance our teaching andlearning environment include changes to the:

Direct Methods

Method of Assessment Colleges (Number of Programs/College)

Commercially prepared written exams 6 0 6 3 9 5 2 0 31

Commercially prepared oral exams 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Locally prepared written exams 7 5 6 8 8 5 4 0 43

Locally prepared oral exams 4 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 12

Performance/presentation 9 5 1 8 8 3 0 0 34

Portfolio analysis 1 5 0 8 3 3 2 0 22

Case-studies 0 0 2 7 5 0 0 0 14

Capstone/senior projects 5 4 4 7 2 5 4 0 31

Off-campus internships & practicums 5 2 1 7 9 3 1 0 28

Other 6 1 1 3 2 11 1 1 26

Exit interviews 8 2 2 6 9 6 7 0 40

Focus groups 0 1 2 3 1 3 1 0 11

Alumni surveys 7 2 2 4 9 2 4 0 30

Employer surveys 6 0 2 2 10 4 1 0 25

Other 2 1 0 1 7 11 0 2 24

Total Direct Methods

Indirect Methods

43 27 21 53 47 36 14 1 242

Total Indirect Methods 23 6 8 16 36 26 13 2 130

Total Direct and Indirect Methods 66 33 29 69 83 62 27 3 372

AS&T(12)

A&H(8)

B&E(6)

Ed(8)

HP(12

Sci(7)

S&BS(13)

Acad.Affairs

(3)

Total(69)

Standard 2: Table VIII. Methods of Assessment.

Key:AST&T –College of Applied Scienceand TechnologyA&H – College of Arts and Humanities

B&E – Goddard School of Businessand EconomicsEd – Moyes College of EducationHP - Dumke College of HealthProfessions

Sci – College of ScienceS&BS – College of Social andBehavioral Science


Curriculum¥ Development of new programs and courses¥ Revision in curriculum scope and sequence¥ Increased course offerings¥ Evaluation and selection of new textbooks¥ Promotion and selection of new intern-

ships/clinical sites¥ Increased exposure to diverse populations

Academic and Career Advising Process¥ Addition of full- and part-time advisors¥ Addition of annual advising¥ Development of a sophomore-advising

course¥ Enhancement of career services¥ Implementation of career development

workshops

Faculty¥ Increased professional development for

faculty¥ Improvements in relations between faculty

and students¥ Revision of lecture content and presenta-

tion (integrative lectures/labs)¥ Emphasis on improved instruction with a

focus on learning outcomes

Changes reported by programs to improve theprocess of outcomes assessment include:

¥ Incorporating data from community members, alumni, employers, and advisorycommittee members

¥ Comparing graduating student data withdata from incoming students or nationalcomparisons

¥ Refining data collection, recording, and dis-semination techniques

A copy of the most current assessment reportfor each academic program can be found in theappendices of each program self-study locatedin the Team Exhibit Room. (Current as well asall past reports can be found atprograms.weber.edu/assessment/wsu-academ-ic-departments.htm.) A table that summarizes,by college, the kinds of changes which haveoccurred as a result of assessment can befound in Appendix C Ð Results of Assessment.

Assessment of General Educationand Other Required Courses

Overview

As noted earlier in this section of the self-study, we have a distributed general educationprogram and additional other required coursesthat provide students with instruction in:

¥ Core general education areas: EnglishComposition, American Institutions (AI),Quantitative Literacy, and Computer andInformation Literacy

¥ Breadth general education areas:Humanities/Creative Arts, LifeSciences/Physical Sciences, and SocialSciences

¥ Other areas: Diversity (DV), ScientificInquiry, and Language Proficiency

Process

Assessment of our university-wide generaleducation and other required courses hasoccurred both statewide and at WSU.

Statewide Assessment of GeneralEducation

In 1995, the Utah Board of Regents created astatewide General Education Task Force tobegin work on identifying common competen-cies and common assessment strategies in thecore general education areas of Composition,American Institutions, Quantitative Literacy,and Computer and Information Literacy.Selected faculty from all public Utah Systemof Higher Education (USHE) institutionsserved on separate task force subcommitteesfor each of these core areas. The work of thesubcommittees was on hiatus from 1996-98while all USHE institutions converted from aquarter to a semester calendar. During thisconversion, the general education curriculumacross USHE institutions was closely articu-lated.

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/wsu-academic-departments.htm


In 1998-99, the task force subcommitteesresumed their work, aided by four statewideconferences entitled, "What is an EducatedPerson?,Ó which provided a forum for USHEfaculty to discuss and brainstorm commongeneral education outcomes and possibleassessment strategies. In 2000-01, WSU andother USHE institutions participated in a pilot

assessment of student learning in Math 1050(one of the Quantitative Literacy courses) andthe three courses meeting the AmericanInstitutions requirement (PolSc 1100, Hist1700, Econ 1740) by using course-embedded,faculty-designed, pre- and post-test questions.

WSU Assessment of General Education

There have been two institution-wide efforts toassess core and breadth general education out-comes at WSU:

1) From 1998 to 2001, a survey was attachedto the Application for Graduation thatasked students to identify their level ofperceived achievement with regard to 14core and breadth general educational out-comes and to assess the value of a WSUeducation in promoting their progress withthese outcomes. (For a copy of the survey,see: programs.weber.edu/assessment/gener-al_education_survey_revised.htm)

2) From 1998 to 2000, we implemented aninstitutional portfolio assessment project tomeasure studentsÕ writing and numeracycompetencies;. (For details, see: pro-grams.weber.edu/assessment/genedassess-ment.htm.) Two interdisciplinary teams offaculty evaluated approximately 150anonymous samples of student workagainst a set of faculty-designed rubrics (97 writing samples and 51 numeracy samples).

In addition to these institution-wide projects,these core/breadth general education assess-ment efforts have taken place:

¥ In 2001-02, three breadth general educa-tion task forces for Life Science/PhysicalScience, Humanities/Creative Arts, andSocial Science were established to begin

discussions on expectedstudent outcomes andpossible assessmentstrategies. In the springof 2003, these task forcessurveyed students ontheir perceptions of thegeneral education out-comes of courses inwhich they were

enrolled. The data will be analyzed and dis-cussed by faculty during the 2003-04 year.

¥ In addition, since 1999-00, students havebeen able to meet the Computer &Information Literacy core general educa-tion requirement by taking four one-creditcourses, four half-credit exams, or a combi-nation of courses and exams.

WSU Assessment of Other RequiredCourses (Diversity, Scientific Inquiry,Language Proficiency)

In 2000-03, a student survey developed by theAcademic Affairs Diversity Action Team toassess whether the diversity courses weremeeting their intended outcomes was adminis-tered to students enrolled in diversity courses.

Language competence is assessed by the for-eign languages department by providing thefollowing two options to students with priorlanguage experience:

¥ Option 1: Pass an upper division coursewith a minimum grade of C

¥ Option 2: Demonstrate the appropriateproficiency level through an examinationadministered by the foreign languagesdepartment (Novice High is required forstudents challenging the first year andIntermediate Low is required for studentschallenging the second year)

“Genius without education is likesilver in the mine.”

¾ Ben Franklin

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/general_education_survey_revised.htm

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/genedassessment.htm


These exams are given only for the languagesin which the department has expertise:Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese, French,Italian, and Portuguese.

The Scientific Inquiry requirement has notbeen assessed to date.


Our assessment of general education and otherrequired courses has not produced any docu-mented changes in how these courses aretaught, but assessment has produced theseresults:

Statewide Assessment of GeneralEducation

The 2000-01 pilot project results generallyindicated an increase in student test scoresfrom pre- to post-test for four courses (onemath and three AI courses), although therewere concerns expressed by faculty about uni-formity of test items and testing proceduresacross institutions as well as the sampling ofcourses. The results of this pilot project wereshared with the Utah Board of Regents.

WSU Assessment of General Education

The results of the two institution-wide assess-ment efforts have been shared with ourFaculty Senate and include the following:

¥ The Application for Graduation surveyresponses indicated that graduating associ-ate-degree and baccalaureate-degree stu-dents, in general, perceived their level ofgeneral education knowledge and skill abil-ities to be "good to excellent." This was alsothe case for their perceived progress atWSU in these 14 general education out-come areas. (Seeprograms.weber.edu/assessment/genedassessment.htm for more details.)

¥ The data from the Institutional Portfolioproject indicated that a majority of the stu-dents whose work was sampled had compe-

tent numeracy and writing skills (see tablebelow). Further, junior/senior studentswere more likely to demonstrate competen-cy than freshmen/sophomore students (seeTable IX on page 24). The portfolio resultssupport the Application for GraduationSurvey data on graduating senior studentsÕself-perceptions of their competency andprogress in writing ability and numeracy.

Nearly 3,500 out of almost 5,000 studentshave successfully completed the Computer &Information Literacy exams since 1999-2000;this is a pass rate of approximately 70%.

There are no results to report for the breadthtask forces; their work is ongoing.

WSU Assessment of Other RequiredCourses (Diversity, Scientific Inquiry,Language Proficiency)

The results of the DV course assessment indi-cated that ethnicity and culture were the twomost prominent aspects of diversity that weretaught. Students also felt that our facultymembers were successful in providing themwith opportunities to study and reflect onthese diversity aspects in safe and comfortableclassroom environments. These results wereshared with faculty who teach DV courses.

The foreign languages department languageproficiency assessment data indicate thatthere is a 99% pass rate for examinations.Data also indicate that the language mostoften "tested out" of is Spanish, followed byPortuguese, German, and French.

Assessment of Academic Centers

Overview

We have 12 Academic Centers, housed in six ofour seven colleges, that share the resourcesand expertise of our faculty and staff with thesurrounding schools, agencies, and community.Examples include the Ott Planetarium in theCollege of Science, the Technology AssistanceCenter in the College of Applied Science &Technology, and the Child Care Resources and

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/genedassessment.htm


Referral Center in the Moyes College ofEducation. Academic Centers provide an arrayof activities including but not limited to:

¥ Instruction, including workshops, seminars, and courses

¥ Student internships, practicums, and workstudy

¥ Professional development and opportuni-ties for faculty

¥ Research and scholarship opportunities forfaculty and students

¥ Financial support for faculty and studentsthrough center-funded activities

¥ WSU representation in statewide discussions on curriculum, certification,and teacher preparation

¥ Partnerships between WSU, schools, businesses, government agencies, and thecommunity

Process

The Academic Centers follow the same assess-ment model used by the academic programs.One modification to the model is that theAcademic Centers provide a service grid ratherthen a curriculum grid. Thus the CentersÕassessment model includes the following: mis-sion statement, outcomes, service grid, assess-ment plan, and assessment results. Of the 12Academic Centers, 50% (n = 6) have completedall steps of the assessment model to date,including the submission of an assessmentreport to the relevant dean (see Appendix Dfor specific information on the status of eachcenter).

Academic Center outcomes are measured withboth direct and indirect assessment tech-niques. The assessment strategies, mostlyindirect methods, include the following:

¥ Faculty interviews¥ Surveys (audience, teachers, employers,

employees)

¥ Needs assessments¥ Evaluations (class, projects, training)¥ Client satisfaction measures


The following is a summary of the assessmentprocess changes and the service changes as aresult of the assessment processes implement-ed by Academic Centers.

Assessment Process Changes¥ Establishment of advisory boards where

none existed before¥ Development of surveys (technician and

client satisfaction)¥ Increase the number of assessment strate-

gies (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, peerreviews, and classroom evaluations.)

Service Changes¥ New programs and seminars to meet

client needs¥ Develop community partnerships¥ Open additional offices to meet client needs¥ Extend the services of the centers to the

southern regions of the state¥ Hire program managers with economic

development backgrounds¥ Improve procedures to address project

management issues and communication

Assessment of ContinuingEducation/Community Services

Overview

Continuing Education/Community Services(CE/CS) is a service organization housed with-in the Division of Academic Affairs; CE/CSoffers classes and programs, using a variety oftechnologies and delivery systems, to studentswith significant time constraints or who are

Level of Student Competent Numeracy %Competent Writing %

Freshmen/Sophomore 74% (n = 23)69% (n = 48)

Junior/Senior 89% (n = 28)82% (n = 49)

Standard 2: Table IX. Student Competency.


unable to attend classes on the Ogden or Daviscampuses. In 2001-02, we began the formalprocess of assessing CE/CS service outcomes.

Process

We used a modified version of the academicprogram outcomes assessment model thatincludes identification of the following CE/CScomponents:

¥ Mission statement¥ Service outcomes¥ Services grid¥ Assessment plan¥ Results/closing-the-gap report

We initially identified seven outcomes in thecognitive and affective domains of learning(e.g., cognitive = develop effective customizedprograms; affective = make decisions thatvalue multi-dimensional, two-way partner-ships). Indirect assessment strategies are mostfrequently used to measure service outcomesand include focus groups and student surveys.


Two kinds of changes have occurred as a resultof our assessment strategies.

Service Changes

¥ Revised CE/CS mission statement to focuson providing leadership in the developmentand delivery of quality lifelong learningopportunities for a local, national, andinternational audience. We are also concen-trating our efforts to develop strategic part-nerships with Hill Air Force Base andother governmental agencies and businesses.

¥ Restructured CE/CS to assign a liaison toeach academic college. Additionally, ourCE/CS front office staff have received train-ing that will allow them to better answerstudent inquiries dealing with registrationprocedures, and financial aid. By restruc-

turing CE/CS, we can provide a "one stopshop" to meet faculty, staff, and studentneeds.

Assessment Process Changes

¥ Revised service outcome statements fromseven to four to more accurately identifyanticipated client outcomes, rather thanprocess or tactical statements

¥ Revised assessment plan to create a man-ageable rotation for assessing the revisedoutcomes

Assessment of the Library

Overview

The Stewart LibraryÕs mission statement artic-ulates the ongoing commitment to assessinglibrary resources and services and to makingimprovements based on assessment outcomes.The mission of the Stewart Library is to:

"Support the instructional, scholarship,and community service mission ofWeber State University through thedevelopment of on-site collections,access to off-site resources, personal-ized assistance in the use of library andinformation resources, and instructionon research strategies and tools.

Systematically assess the services weprovide and the relevancy and use ofthe collections and use assessment out-comes to continually improve ourresources and services."

Process

Assessment within the library follows thesame model as the other areas withinAcademic Affairs with the exception of the cur-riculum grid. The library model consists of themission statement, assessment outcomes,assessment plan, and assessment reports.

Informal assessment of the library resourcesand services has occurred since 1994; system-atic assessment began in 1998. A variety ofmethods are used to assess student and facul-ty satisfaction with library resources and serv-ices including surveys, interviews, focusgroups, usability testing, and suggestionsplaced in on-site and online suggestion boxes.(Results of surveys conducted in 2002 areavailable on the libraryÕs web page atlibrary.weber.edu/intra/libad/assessment/default.asp.)

Learning outcomes for students taking thelibraryÕs for-credit courses are assessed eachsemester through written assignments,quizzes, oral presentations, exams, and a finalproject. Learning outcomes are assessed inboth the cognitive and affective domains.Eleven outcomes are assessed with 95% of theassessment being done in the cognitive domainand 5% in the affective domain.

Some examples of cognitive objectives are thatstudents will demonstrate knowledge andapplication in the steps involved in theresearch process, and students will demon-strate the ability to find and access informa-tion using catalogs, databases, and searchengines effectively. An example of an affectiveobjective is that students will demonstrate theability to access and use information ethicallyand legally.

Reports of library assessments were includedin documentation provided for NorthwestAccreditation reviews in 1994, 1996, and 1999.Assessment efforts and outcomes are summa-rized and included in the libraryÕs annualreports for 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The2001-02 report is available on the libraryÕs webpage at the URL listed earlier.


Changes implemented since 1994 as a result oflibrary assessment activities include:

¥ Increased on-site collection and access toremote resources (from 360,000 to 500,000bound volumes).

¥ Increased numbers of electronic resources(from 400 to nearly 200,000).

¥ Increased videos (from 2,500 to 6,700).¥ Redesigned instruction program to meet

national information literacy standards.¥ Implemented anywhere/anytime electronic

reserve system.¥ Added 65 PCs to the public service areas

(up from 20). ¥ Increased library hours from 85 to 105

per week.¥ Placed greater emphasis on professional

development of faculty and staff.

II. Significant Changes Since1994

The most significant change since 1994 hasbeen the systematic implementation of out-comes assessment within the Division ofAcademic Affairs (academic programs, generaleducation, other required courses, academiccenters, CE/CS, and the library). Althoughmany programs and offices had mission state-ments, for many this was the first time theydeveloped program- or office-wide learningoutcomes, a grid of where these outcomes aretaught, and an assessment plan. The creationof a public, university-wide web site on assess-ment Ñprograms.weber.edu/assessment/table_of_con-tents.htm Ñ is new since 1994.

As outcomes assessment procedures have beenimplemented, there have been some changesmade in the assessment process as well aschanges to enhance our teaching and learningenvironment. Those changes were identifiedearlier in this section of the self-study.

III. Strengths and Challenges

Strengths include:

¥ Since we began systematic outcomesassessment in 1998, we have created asolid foundation by using a common modelthat has broad faculty and staff involve-ment with some institutional support; weStandard Two — Educational Program and Assessment83

http://library.weber.edu/intra/libad/assessment/default.asp

http://programs.weber.edu/assessment/table_of_contents.htm

have made public our anticipated learningoutcomes and annual assessment reports;our professionally accredited programshave well-established outcomes assessmentprocedures which have been ongoing forseveral years

Challenges include:

¥ Integrating our results of assessment intoour overall planning and evaluationprocesses

¥ Lack of ownership for assessment of general education and other requiredcourses

¥ Level of institutional support for assessment

IV. Next Steps/ Action Items

¥ Integrate results of assessment into ouroverall planning and evaluation processes.

¥ Maintain momentum on assessment byproviding ongoing formal training in out-comes assessment for faculty and staff.

¥ Implement effective assessment strategiesfor general education and other requiredcourses; engage in campus discussions onpurposes and goals of general educationand the courses which are part of the gen-eral education program.

¥ Develop a plan to increase the level ofinstitutional support for assessment (access to data, and assistance with logistics of assessment.)

Standard Two — Educational Program and Assessment 84

85 Standard Two — Educational Program and Assessment

APPENDIX A – Outcomes Assessment Model Implementation by College

Areas Within Academic Affairs(Number of Programs)

MissionStatement

Student LearningOutcomes

CurriculumGrid

AssessmentPlan

Results ofAssessment

Report

College of Applied Science &Technology

12 / 12 12 / 12 10 / 12 9 / 12 7 / 12

College of Arts & Humanities 8 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 8 6 / 8

Goddard School of Business &Economics

5 / 5 5 / 5 5 /5 3 / 5 5 / 5

Moyes College of Education 8 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 8 8 / 8

Dumke College of HealthProfessions

12 / 12 12 / 12 12 / 12 12 / 12 12 / 12

College of Science 7 / 7 7 / 7 7 / 7 7 / 7 7 / 7

College of Social & BehavioralSciences

12 / 13 12 / 13 12 / 13 12 / 13 7 / 13

Office of Academic Affairs(Bachelor of Integrated Studies,Honors, First Year Experience)

3 / 3 3 / 3 3 / 3 3 / 3 2 / 3

TOTAL 68 / 69 68 / 69 65 / 69 63 / 69 55 / 69

PERCENT 99% 99% 94% 91% 80%


APPENDIX B – Submission of Annual Assessment Reports

PROGRAM 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003College of Applied Science & Technology

Computer & Design Graphics TechnologyComputer & Electronics Engineering Technology XComputer Science XConstruction Management Technology XManufacturing Engineering Technology X XMechanical Engineering Technology X X XAutomotive Service Technology (2 yr)Automotive Technology (4 yr)Interior Design Technology X XSales & Merchandising X XTechnical Sales X X XTelecommunication & Business Education X X X

College of Arts & HumanitiesCommunication X X XEnglish Language & Literature X X XEnglish as a Second Language X XForeign Languages & Literatures X X X XDance X X XMusic X X X XTheatre Arts X X X XVisual Arts

Goddard School of Business & EconomicsAccountancy Undergraduate and Graduate X X XBusiness Administration X X XInformation Systems & Technologies X X XEconomics X X XMaster of Business Administration (began in FY01) X X

Moyes College of EducationAthletic Training (began in FY99) XHealth Promotion X XPhysical Education X X X XHuman PerformanceHuman Performance Management X XEarly Childhood & Early Childhood Education X X X XFamily Studies X X X XTeacher Education Graduate X X XTeacher Education Undergraduate X X X

Dumke College of Health ProfessionsClinical Laboratory Science X X X XDental Hygiene X X X XEmergency Care & Rescue X X XHealth Information Management X X XHealth Information Technology X X XHealth Services Administration X X XHealth Promotion X XLong Term Care X XHealth Sciences X XNursing X X X XRadiological Sciences X X X XRespiratory Therapy X X X X

College of ScienceBotany X X X XChemistry XGeosciences X X X XMathematics X XMicrobiology X X XPhysics X X XZoology X X

College of Social & Behavioral SciencesAnthropology X X XCriminal Justice Graduate (began in FY01)Criminal Justice Undergraduate X X XGeography X X X XGerontology X


PROGRAM 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003History XMilitary Science X XPhilosophy X X X XPolitical Science X X X XPsychologySocial Work X XSociology X X X XWomen’s Studies X X X

Office of Academic AffairsBachelor of Integrated Studies X XFirst Year Experience X X X XHonors X

TOTAL REPORTS/69 PROGRAMSPERCENT

23/6933%

41/6959%

55/6989%

56/6981%


APPENDIX C – Results of Assessment

College Assessment Process Changes Teaching & Learning ChangesCollege ofAppliedScience &Technology

• Curriculum and accreditation alignment withassessed outcomes

• Added reliance on assessment by advisorycommittees

• Re-evaluation of relationship of capstone/seniorprojects to courses

• Added writing and math experiences• Added integrative lecture and lab work• Increased professional development for faculty

College ofArts &Humanities

• Refinement of surveys• Assessment of additional outcomes• Improvements in assessment rubrics• Implementation of national exam• Analysis of comparison data• Theory test for incoming freshmen• Auditions for incoming freshmen• Re-assessment of credit requirement for

practicums

• Funded a part time advisor• Developed a new creative writing course• Improved community relations within the

English department (English Club and Social)• Added new courses• Added full-time/part-time faculty• Required auditions and testing of incoming

majors• Restructured several courses

GoddardSchool ofBusiness &Economics

• Changes in the assessment model for studentpresentations

• Modification of student learning outcomes• Better connection made between outcomes and

department mission statement

• Funded student placement files at CareerServices

• Hosted a program that promotes internships• Lectures in sound job search skills each term• Increased emphasis on out-of-state employment• Restructured curriculum• Added application package of Microsoft

applications in required courses• Added annual advising• Implemented career development workshops

MoyesCollege ofEducation

• Evaluation of portfolios• Development of new rubrics• Alignment of curriculum with program and

student outcomes• Refinement of procedures for data collection,

recording, and dissemination• Providing professional development

opportunities related to assessment

• Re-ordered scope and sequence of curriculum• Re-aligned curriculum and professional

standards• Increased exposure to diverse populations• Increased emphasis on improving instruction

with a focus on the learning outcomes• Re-aligned course requirements with outcomes

DumkeCollege ofHealthProfessions

• Exploring new ways of obtaining assessmentinformation

• Improved information to faculty on changes andneeded changes in the college

• Improved distribution of assessment results

• Developed a plan for the use of expendituresbased on assessment results

• Revised curriculum• Changed textbooks, curriculum, and clinical

sites• Developed a program to ease progress

through a programCollege ofScience

• Development of an exit interview instrument• Development of a comprehensive exam• Implementation of five-year curriculum review• Implementation of writing analysis assessment• Development of a field project analysis

instrument• Identification of portfolio requirements• Revision of the writing, speaking, and

computing skills assessment

• Developed sophomore course for advising,portfolio, and thesis requirements

• Revised curriculum• Added assessment opportunities per course• Added capstone courses• Increased offerings of classes• Added new course offerings

College ofSocial &BehavioralSciences

• Implementation of the assessment model acrossall programs

• Implemented the outcomes assessment processto better determine and meet student andprogram needs

Office ofAcademicAffairs(Bachelor ofIntegratedStudies, FirstYearExperience,Honors)

• Learning outcomes have been refined• Surveys have been refined

• Evaluated the need, use, and upgrade of thetext used in Educ. 1105


APPENDIX D – Status of Assessment Model by Academic Center

Centers(n = 12)

MissionStatement

CenterOutcomes

ServiceGrid

Assessment PlanResults of

AssessmentReport

2001-02

Results ofAssessment

Report2002-03

Center for AutomotiveScience and Technology X X X X XTechnology Assistance Center

X X X X XCenter for Business andEconomic Development X X X X XCenter for Science andMathematics Education X X X X X XCenter for ChemicalTechnology X X X X X XMuseum of Natural Science

X X X XOtt Planetarium X X X X X XCenter for Social SciencesEducation X X XChild Care Resources andReferral Center X X X X XUtah Musical Theatre X X XWeber Studies X X XOffice of Cultural Affairs X X XTotal 12/12 12/12 7/12 8/12 8/12 7/12Percent 100% 100% 58% 66% 66% 58%

educational program planning and assessment (2.b.1, 2.b.2 ... · course ¥ enhancement of career...

Documents