CAHSS Assessment Plan/NCA Assessment Levels Report
2002-2003

Department Name:

Chairperson Name:

According to the CAHSS assessment plan published in Fall 2000, the College aimed for all departments to attain in 2002-2003 “Level III” as indicated in the NCA document Levels of Assessment Implementation: Patterns of Characteristics Matrix—see, for the most recent version: http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/resources/assessment/LevelsforCEs.pdf.

Departments have filed reports of progress toward this goal in Fall 2000, Spring 2001, and Spring 2002.

Please complete the following report to indicate the status of your department’s attainment of Level III. Since Level III includes all Level II goals and a few additional ones, and since the goals often overlap, the following form consolidates some of these goals and attempts to keep redundant responses to a minimum. A large part of this report should be a matter of gleaning and compiling information from your department’s Program Assessment Progress Reports and Core Assessment Posters.

Indicate the status of your department’s attainment of Level III (which, to repeat, includes Level II goals) on the form below. Please follow the specific instructions, written in italics, for each goal. Please submit your report in electronic form to Daryl Rice no later than Friday, May 2.

1. Goals for Departments:
   1. Departmental statements of purpose include a focus on improving student learning and the importance they attribute to assessing student learning as a means to that end (II). Every program has a published statement of purpose and goals including assessing and improving student learning (III)
      Indicate where your department’s statements about assessment are published —e.g. governance documents, university catalogs, websites, etc—i .e ., sites other than your Assessment Plan, Program Assessment Progress Reports, and Core Assessment Posters. If your department has not published such statements, describe a detailed plan that includes a timetable, for doing so.)
   2. Direct and indirect measures of student learning are aligned with the program’s educational goals and measurable objectives (II). Where appropriate, programmatic benchmarks are established against which students’ learning outcomes can be assessed (III).
      (Since achievement of these goals in core courses is evaluated by evaluators at the Core Assessment Poster Session and in programs by the College Program Assessment Readers Panel, cite here the following:
      1. The rating or summary comment given to item 1, “Methods,” on the evaluation sheet for each of the core courses within your department during the last cycle of core assessment reporting [Fall 2002]
      2. The rating given to item 3, “Evaluation of the Approach” on the evaluation sheet for each of the programs within your department during the last cycle of program assessment reporting [Spring 2003]).
   3. Units have effective feedback loops so that information about assessment results and associated changes can be shared with all constituencies and used to improve student learning (II).
      (Cite examples of how assessment results and associated changes were shared with important constituencies this year.)
   4. Conclusions reached after reviewing assessment results are incorporated into regular departmental planning, budgeting, and included in the determination of priorities for the program (II). Effectiveness of changes to improve student learning is evaluated and documented (III).
      (Cite examples of how assessment results were used this year. Also, cite measurable results of changes to courses or programs that were made during past cycles of assessment.)
   5. Departmental assessment programs are annually reviewed and updated as data is collected (III).
      (Cite examples of changes made to assessment plans this year and briefly note the rationale.)
2. Goals for Faculty:
   1. Faculty are knowledgeable about campus assessment program (II). Faculty know the vocabulary and practices used in effective assessment activities and contribute to assessment discussions and activities (II). Faculty are increasingly involved in discussing and interpreting assessment results and recommending changes in order to improve student learning (II).
      (Make no entries here. See “For Department Chairs,” D.2 below.)
   2. Syllabi of courses (old and new) include measurable objectives for student learning and how student learning will be assessed. These objectives are developed in alignment with the program’s educational goals (II).
      (Make no entries here. See “For Department Chairs D.5” below.)
   3. Some faculty members explore uses of assessment in research on cognition and active learning strategies (III).
      (Cite examples of faculty research on assessment or active learning strategies that was published or presented at professional conferences this year. Also cite examples of work in progress.)
3. Goals for Students:
   1. Students serve on assessment committees and are knowledgeable about institution’s assessment program (II). Student leaders educate peers about the assessment program (III).
      (Cite examples of student participation in assessment activities—other than as subjects of assessment—this year.)
4. Goals for Department Chairs
   1. Ensures that implementation of plans for assessing all programs and relevant courses (undergraduate and graduate programs, and core courses) is carried out (II).
      (List any programs and core courses for which assessment was not conducted this year. Cite the reason—for example, a program that was new this year—and provide a timetable for future assessment activities.)
   2. Ensures that responsibility for assessment is shared among faculty (II).
      (Related to “For Faculty, B.1,” above. Describe the extent of the involvement of all faculty in assessment activities this year.)
   3. Ensures that good assessment is rewarded in annual evaluations and promotion and tenure decisions (II).
      (Cite examples of how assessment figured into annual evaluations and tenure and promotion decisions this year.)
   4. Ensures that funds for release time and other assessment purposes are properly expended (II).
      (Provide a summary of how funds—included those distributed from Dean’s office—were expended on assessment this year. Also list any faculty who were granted reassignments from teaching for assessment activities and indicate the source of funds that made the reassignment possible.)
   5. Ensures that all course syllabi include learning objectives (II).
      (Related to “Goals for Faculty, B.3,” above. Confirm that all course syllabi included learning objectives this year. If some syllabi did not include learning objectives, explain why and provide a plan that includes a timetable for ensuring that those syllabi will include learning objectives in the future.)

Back to the top