nyit annual program assessment report, june 2018€¦ · nyit annual program assessment report,...

NYIT Annual Program Assessment Report, June 2018

1

This report provides evidence that students are achieving end-of-program learning goals and that graduates are attaining achievement outcomes established by the program.

Name of the program: ____Digital Art and Design-Animation MFA/ Fine Arts & Tech MFA/ Graphic Design MFA ___

Year (e.g., AY17-18) of assessment report: ____AY17-18_________________________________________

Date Submitted: ___May 2018______________________________________________________________

Contact: _________Lynn Pocock_____________________________________________________________

The Statement of Program Learning Goals and Curricular Matrix are available and updated at: http://www.nyit.edu/planning/academic_assessment_plans_reports

Last year’s DoDAD’s matrixes:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UMj9XkTRz0Lih3SL4m4Q7AzcbRkCNUEf

DoDAD’s MFA learning goals:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwK4Mo8OfXo_QVl4Sy1jd1hmZlU

I. I. Annual Program Learning Assessment:

1. CLOSING THE LOOP: Many programs proposed improvement actions based AY 16-17 assessment results. Please report where the program are at implementing the improvement plan.

http://www.nyit.edu/planning/academic_assessment_plans_reports


2

Last year, we evaluated 2nd year thesis students with respect to their presentation language, skills language, and content. In order to improve these skills, students continue to present weekly to their professors, and we continue to require 2 formal presentations per semester for each student. Please note that the majority of our current students are from China. Thus, much improvement in this domain is not likely to happen within the short time that the students are here at NYIT. In addition, we are currently struggling with plagiarism of content among the Chinese students. Thus, we continue to give instruction regarding the legal issues with respect to plagiarism at NYIT and in this country.


3

2. GOALS: List program learning goals that have been assessed in AY17-18.

Please note that all 3 MFA specializations were assessed this year: Animation Program, Graphic Design Program, and Fine Art & Technology Program. All 5 program learning goals were evaluated for each program: 1. Research 2. Creative work 3. Business Practices 4. Technology 5. Synthesis

3. METHOD: Describe the method of assessment and attach measurement instruments (e.g., rubric, exam items, scoring guide for a particular task, supervisor evaluation form, and standardized assessment tool). On May 17 2018, guest reviewers spent the day with 2nd year MFA Thesis students, looking at their work, providing feedback, and filling in the evaluation forms. The guest reviewers included industry professionals, adjunct faculty, and alumni. Each 2nd year Thesis student gave a brief presentation of their thesis project. The students and reviewers were organized according to their specializations: animation, graphics design, fine art & technology. Projects consisted of animations, web designs, fine artwork, etc. For each student, the reviewers filled out the evaluation form via a digital tablet. Please see attached Evaluation Forms for the list of questions for each MFA specialization. Once the data was organized, it was then analyzed for this Assessment Report. The evaluation forms for the 3 specializations are as follows:


4


5


6


7

4. ANALYSIS: Report assessment results per learning criteria (e.g., per row of rubric, subset of test items, components of a learning task). A summary of the results are as follows;

Fine Art &Technology Results


8


9

Animation Results


10


11

Graphic Design Results


12


13

Reviewer Comments Reviewer comments can be found in the corresponding files: MFA.Graphic Design Reviewer Comments MFA.Art&Technology Reviewer Comments MFA.Animation Reviewer Comments

5. INTERPRETATION: Provide an interpretation of student strengths and weaknesses for a given program learning outcome. Animation Interpretation Concept/Storytelling – There is room for improvement. Research – Given the limited time for each student, the students only showed their final project, and did not present their research.. Business Practices – Given the limited time for each student, the students only showed their final project, and did not present the business procedures/processes behind their work. Technology – There is room for improvement. Synthesis – There is room for improvement. Fine Art &Technology Interpretation Concept Design/Creative Work – There is room for improvement. Research/Process – Given the limited time for each student, the students only showed their final project, and did not present their research. Business Practices – Given the limited time for each student, the students only showed their final project, and did not present the business procedures/processes behind their work. Technology – There is room for improvement. Synthesis – There is room for improvement. Graphic Design Interpretation Concept/Creative work – There is room for improvement. Research – Given the limited time for each student, the students only showed their final project, and did not present their research.


14

Business Practices – Given the limited time for each student, the students only showed their final project, and did not present the business procedures/processes behind their work. Technology – There is room for improvement. Synthesis – There is room for improvement.

6. IMPROVEMENTS – If any weakness has been identified, provide a plan for improvement, including timeline, and personal responsibility for completion.

Concept We will continue to emphasize the importance of Concept Development in the MFA class. Given that half of the students only recently arrived from our Beijing (for their second year of classes), they come to us with their thesis concept already defined. We will work harder with those students when they arrive in New York. This past year, we spent much time emphasizing to the first year students that they are not allowed to plagiarize – that they must own their work: written, visual, conceptual, etc. Unfortunately, it continues to be a problem and will affect their work next year. Hence it might also show up in next year’s assessment results. Both Research/Process and Business Practices are evaluated by a group of faculty during the students’ first year. Perhaps this assessment process, and its limited time format, is not the most appropriate time to re-evaluate them. Technology We will continue to emphasize the importance of technology. Synthesis We will continue to emphasize the importance of time management so that students can finish their work to a point where is it more portfolio-ready.


15

All 5 outcomes will be re-evaluated next spring, with an emphasis on Concept, Technology, and Synthesis.

II. Brief Description of Faculty Engagement in the Current Annual Assessment Report:

With the assistance of the full-time faculty, Professor Rozina Vavetsi created the assessment Evaluation Forms; see attached Evaluation Forms. These forms were the primary data tool used for this year’s assessment. Again, with the assistance of the faculty and staff, guest reviewers were invited to spend the day with 2nd year MFA Thesis students, looking at their work, providing feedback, and filling in the evaluation forms. The guest reviewers included industry professionals, adjunct faculty, and alumni. For each student, the reviewers filled out the evaluation form via a digital tablet. Once the data was organized, it was then analyzed by the MFA Director for this Assessment Report. III. Annual Program Achievement Goals:

Please provide examples of readily available data on program student achievement (e.g., first-year retention rates, six-year graduation rates, average time to degree completion, certification exam pass rate, student satisfaction survey results, employer satisfaction results, % pursuing an advanced degree, % of job placement, etc.)


16

Current Data from the Registrar’s Office:

FirstTimeFullTime Graduation Rate FirstTimeFullTime Retention Next Year

Acad Level (Multiple Items) Acad Level (Multiple Items)

Exclusion (Multiple Items) Exclude Deceased Exclusion (Multiple Items) Exclude Deceased

Degree Seeking/ Non Degree Degree seeking Degree Seeking/ Non Degree Degree seeking

Major/Program (Multiple Items) MFA Major/Program (Multiple Items) MFA

FTPT FT FTPT FT

New Admit New Admit New Admit New Admit

LADMSTAT (Multiple Items) Freshman LADMSTAT (Multiple Items) Freshman

Term Start Cohort 3Yr GrdRt 4Yr GrdRt Term Start Cohort RetentionNxtFall

Fall 2011 10 60.00% 60.00% Fall 2014 44 86.36%

New York - MA 7 57.14% 57.14% Global - BE 37 83.78%

New York - OW 3 66.67% 66.67% New York - MA 7 100.00%

Fall 2012 15 60.00% 66.67% Fall 2015 26 88.46%


New York - OW 2 0.00% 0.00% New York - MA 6 66.67%

Fall 2013 7 85.71% 85.71% Fall 2016 17 94.12%


17


Fall 2014 44 84.09% New York - MA 8 87.50%

Global - BE 37 83.78% 83.78%

New York - MA 7 85.71% 85.71%

Grad # Yr: % of the start cohort that graduated before the 3rd, & 4th Fall Term

Ret # Yr: % of the start cohort (minus graduates) that returned in the next Fall Term

Data from last year:

Fall to NextFall Retention %, and 3Yr, & 4Yr Grad Rate

Exclusion (blank) Exclude Deceased

Degree Seeking/ Non Degree Degree seeking

Major/Program (Multiple Items) MFA


18

New Admit New Admit

Column Labels

Fall 2015

Term Count of Stdnts Ret FA1%

New York 12 90.00%

Global - BE, China 20 95.00%

Grand Total 32 93.33%

Campus Group (Multiple Items) New York and Online

Exclusion (blank) Exclude Deceased

Major/Program (Multiple Items) MFA

FTPT FT

New Admit New Admit

Term Start Cohort Grad 3 Yr Grad 4 Yr

Fall 2010 13 61.54% 69.23%


19

Fall 2011 10 60.00% 60.00%

Fall 2012 15 60.00% 66.67%

Fall 2013 7 85.71%

Note. Please contact Director of Planning and Assessment, Kathleen Gill ([email protected]) for assessment support.

mailto:[email protected]

nyit annual program assessment report, june 2018€¦ · nyit annual program assessment report,...

Documents