Instituional Research & Assessment

An electronic publication for communication to the campus community about assessment and institutional effectiveness, the Newsletter is published by the Provost's Office.

University Assessment Committee becomes Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Committee. To monitor progress of the University’s strategic plan and to extend assessment to the entire campus community, the Board of Trustees approved the administration’s recommendation to create a standing committee of the University on Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. Academic and non-academic representatives comprise the committee. If you would like more information about the charge to the new committee, read SUU policy 13.29.

Five-column Assessment Plan and Report. Prior to morphing into its new role (see above story), the University’s Assessment Committee adopted a “five-column” model for departments to articulate their assessment plans and reports beginning this academic year. Here’s the model:

Mission/Goals            Learning              Assessment                                            Use of
Statement                 Outcomes            Activities              Data Collected             Results

A department’s assessment plan uses the first three columns and is submitted in November each year. An assessment report uses the last two columns and is submitted in May each year.

Technology and Portfolios. Technology is an important tool in assessment. Dr. Trudy Banta, editor of Assessment Update, a national newsletter on assessment progress, trends and practices has noted:

“The assessment method that seems to be drawing most attention is the electronic portfolio, in which students take responsibility for selecting samples of their own work, then writing accompanying reflective essays to explain how their choices illustrate that they have attained specific knowledge and skills.”

In a similar vein, web-based surveys speed data gathering and spreadsheets aid in analysis. In SUU’s College of Education, technology helps students create individual portfolios of learning that carry over into careers and into program assessment. For more information on the use of portfolios, contact the College of Education.

CIRP Results. SUU has administered the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey during summer orientation since 1999. National data have been collected since well before that. Typically, overall student responses to this survey change little from year to year. However, a glance back four years revealed some interesting differences between entering freshman cohorts. The selected items have a difference of four percentage points or more.

Academic Profile. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) publishes the Academic Profile test to measure the effectiveness of an institution’s general education program. During Spring semester, we will test a sample of students who have completed their general education requirements at SUU to see how effective the program was. By doing this on a regular basis, we’ll establish an assessment pattern for general education as a body of knowledge.

IT Student Satisfaction Survey. During Fall semester 2002, the computing staff administered a web-based survey of student use and satisfaction with SUU computing resources. Survey results will be distributed to the deans and will be posted to the SUU web site. Results highlight frequencies of computing lab use, suggestions for lab development and for additional software to meet user needs.

NSSE Institutional Benchmark Report. Each November, the folks managing the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) at Indiana University issue an institutional benchmark report. SUU received its second report last fall, and results were shared with the deans and other administrators. The report highlights SUU’s positive processes (ranking at or above peer institution averages) for active and collaborative learning (e.g., class presentations, working with others, contributing to class discussions) and supportive campus environment (e.g., quality of relationships with other students and faculty, involvement in social activities). Areas that need improvement (ranking below peer institution averages ) include academic challenge/rigor of course work, student-faculty interactions related to career plans and advisement (especially for freshmen), and enriching education experiences (e.g., practica, foreign languages and study abroad, capstone experiences, and diversity).

Bringing Assessment to Faculty*
Faculty members often ask, “Why should we spend our time assessing learning outcomes?” It’s a fair question typically answered, “Because our accrediting agency (regional or discipline- specific) mandates it.” This “letter-of-the-law” answer is not particularly satisfying.

Instead, we might suggest, “Because this information can give you previously untapped insights into your educational programs that will help your unit determine how to use its resources and improve its educational programs.” Assessment can serve the needs and interests of faculty.

The current issue of Change features the theme “Assessing Responsibly.” Richard Shavelson and Leta Huang write the lead article about “Responding Responsibly: To the Frenzy to Assess Learning in Higher Education.” They offer six propositions for faculty to discuss as they consider assessing learning responsibly:

1. Assess personal, social, and civic abilities as well as cognitive ones.
2. Encourage real dialogue and greater agreement on the content of assessments.
3. Recognize that what we test and make public will greatly influence what is taught and what is learned.
4. Achieve clarity in the debate about what to assess through use of a conceptual framework.
5. Develop multiple and varied assessments.
6. Distribute meaningful feed back on assessment results to all stakeholders.

Assessment is an improvement process, not just a measure process. Real assessment means improving the knowledge and abilities that we value as a University and as a society.

*Portions extracted from Assessment Update, November-December 2002, p. 8.