October 9, 2015
Volume 4, Issue 3
The Assessable Roo
A UMKC Outcomes Assessment Newsletter
Why So Serious? Undergraduate Research and
Experiences that Matter
“I really rocked those student
learning outcomes,” said no
student ever.
“One of the most rewarding
parts of my job is scoring student work according to an
awesome assessment rubric I
created,” said no professor
ever.
“Here at State University,
students have their academic
performance monitored closely and all departments have
developed and implemented
rigorous assessment plans,”
said no admissions counselor
ever.
No student, faculty member,
or college recruiter is likely to
trumpet assessment mechanisms as a particularly meaningful part of the college experience, and student learning
outcomes, rubrics, scoring
sessions, and assessment plans
make no appearance in the
“Big Six” characteristics that
the Purdue-Gallup Index revealed as common experiences among successful, satisfied
college graduates Three of
the “Big Six” have to do with
feeling connected to professional and personal mentors
on campus; the other three
characteristics are being able
to work on a project for more
than an a single semester;
being able to apply knowledge
UMKC
Co-Editors
Ruth E. Cain, Director of
Assessment
Dan Stroud, Graduate
Assistant for Assessment
Contributors
Jane Greer, Director of
Undergraduate Research,
Associate Professor of
English and Women’s &
Gender Studies
Robert Groene, Director of
Music Therapy, Associate
Professor, Music Education/Music Therapy
Photo Courtesy of Beginningandend.com
acquired in the classroom in a
more authentic context; and
being involved in extracurricular activities.
As a “high impact” educational practice, undergraduate research and creative scholarship embodies the “Big Six.”
With the guidance of faculty
mentors, undergraduate researchers, scholars, and artists
pursue significant research
questions and artistic projects
and then disseminate their
work through performance,
presentation, or publication.
As students apply what they
have learned in their coursework in labs, archives, studios,
galleries, and other spaces,
they often carry their work
well beyond a single semester.
Exemplary undergraduate researchers, scholars, and artists
can also get involved with
their peers, serving as ambas-
sadors for the Office of Undergraduate Research & Creative Scholarship and engaging with stakeholders well
beyond the campus community.
The challenge for the Office
of Undergraduate Research &
Creative Scholarship is to
make sure that faculty and
students can keep their attention focused on their work
and the kind of “Big Six”
experiences that matter well
beyond the college years,
while minimizing the amount
of time and attention devoted
to assessment procedures.
With this in mind, the Office
of Undergraduate Research &
Creative Scholarship developed a simple rubric that
asked faculty members to
evaluate the undergraduate
ConƟnued on Page 4
Weave Deadline
Don’t Forget!
All Program Assessment
reports must be completed in Weave by
October 15, 2015.
Inside this issue:
Undergrad Research
Virtuous Assessment
2
Music Therapy
3
Research (Continued)
4
New University Plan and
Timeline
4
Page 2
The Virtuous Cycle of Assessment
At the Fall 2015 FaCET Conference, I had the pleasure of facilitating a session on using assessment
results to inform programmatic alterations that result in enhanced
student learning. The discussions
centered on “case studies” that I had
prepared based on assessment reports that had been posted in Weave
during previous assessment cycles.
In reviewing the various reports, I
was greatly impressed by the substantial progress that a number of
programs across the university have
made in developing meaningful
assessment approaches that provide
information to inform improvements
in teaching and learning. Most impressively, the programs included
among the case studies provided
examples of the ultimate virtuous
cycle of assessment - assessing the
impact of planned changes on student learning and planning additional improvements to further enhance
student achievement. Notably, the
programs provided ample evidence
of the meaningful assessment work
they were accomplishing through
their entries in the findings, action
plan, and action plan tracking areas
in Weave and the accompanying
narrative reports.
As I was preparing the case studies
for the conference session, I received a General Education Course
Assessment Report from Dr. Robert
Groene, which described an innovative approach to course-embedded
assessment. Dr. Groene readily
agreed to develop his report into an
article for this newsletter, in which
he describes how he collects and
uses feedback from students to improve teaching and learning, and,
importantly, informs students of the
impact of assessment on changes to
the course.
As you engage in the sometimes frustrating process of entering annual assessment reports into Weave, it is no
doubt easy to lose sight of “why we
assess” as you struggle to navigate the
online system and meet (yet another)
deadline. I urge you to take some time
to reflect on, and discuss with your
The Virtuous Cycle of Assessment
From Kinzei, Hutchings, & Jandowski,
2015, p. 17.
Need Some Assistance?
 FaCET Faculty Fellow for
Assessment Caitlin
Horsmon is available to
help when needed.
 To make an appointment or
just ask a question, send an
email to her at :
horsmonc@umkc.edu.
colleagues, the ultimate purpose of
assessment – to make course and
programmatic alterations that result
in enhanced student learning. Further, I encourage you to share your
good practices and lessons learned
with colleagues across the university by contributing to this newsletter,
leading FaCET workshops, and
preparing case studies as examples
of good practice for our assessment
web site.
In the meantime, don’t hesitate to
contact Dan Stroud or me for assistance with developing and implementing your assessment plans or
with navigating Weave!
~ Ruth Cain
“…theultimatepurposeofassessment—
tomakecourseandprogrammatic
alterationsthatresultinenhancedstudent
learning.”
CALLFORSUBMISSIONS
If you have an assessment process that has worked well for you and your program/department in the past, the
Assessable Roo is a good place to tell your story. Contact Dan Stroud at disrzf@umkc.edu to propose or offer a
submission.
Page 3
Volume 4, Issue 3
Mid S m st r Stud t aluatio s: An
ti T a i g Approa
Photo courtesy of UMKC
Conservatory
A few years ago, I was grappling with
the fact that Student Evaluations of Faculty at final time in the semester often
exhibited low rates of response. This
was evident even when we went from
the paper evaluation system to the current online one that could be completed
anywhere anytime. At any rate, I was
still troubled and thought that there
must be a better way to evaluate.
I then spoke to my Division Chair, Dr.
Joe Parisi. He suggested evaluating students at mid-semester. I took his advice
and eventually came up with this protocol:
At mid-semester I ask each student to
bring to our next class a one page typed
sheet (12 pt. CG Times/Times New
Roman) of white paper – no names or
identifying information, stating
a) Things one likes about the class, and
b) Things one would change if possible.
Next class I place a large envelope in
the classroom, ask the students to insert
their papers, and I leave the classroom.
I ask a student to fetch me when done.
I come back to the room, turn my back
on the class, and ask a student to count
the sheets. If no sheets are missing, I
seal the envelope and take it to my
office after class. If some sheets are
missing or anyone is absent, I seal the
envelope, promise not to open it, and
bring it back next class to get the remaining sheets.
I then open the envelope in my office,
read each sheet, and create a two
column summary page of things students like about the class and
things that they wish they could
change if possible.
I put a plus sign next to similar
comments on the summary
sheet.
Then in italics, I comment on
all comments and suggestions
regarding if they can be totally,
partially, or not implemented
within the second half of the
semester, and provide reasons.
Next class I project the summary sheet to the class and lead
a discussion and potential negotiation session for change with
the students.
Things that can reasonably be
changed or added are instituted
within a few days and the students are informed.
Most students really appreciate
this technique – they get to have
a say in an existing class (not
just for future classes that they
will not be attending). They
appreciate a professor actually
asking their opinion on how a
class could be better for them!
They learn to understand more
of why a professor teaches or
does not teach in a particular
fashion. The professor learns
from the students, and the students learn from the professor.
Bonus: Less “surprises” at the
end of semester evaluations, and
improved curriculum over time.
~ Robert Groene
Don’t Forget!!
The 2014 –15 Assessment Reporting Cycle ends October 15, 2015!! For
assistance in completing the information in Weave, contact Dan
Stroud at disrzf@umkc.edu.
Page 4
Assessment has a Place (Continued from Page 1)
researchers they mentored on a scale
from 1 to 4 (from novice to advanced)
in four critical areas: engagement in
the mentoring relationship; adherence
to widely accepted research/scholarly/
artistic methodologies; contribution to
knowledge; and professional dissemination of the work. Using the rubric
to assess a student’s performance
typically takes a faculty member less
than five minutes, and with twentyfive SUROP (Summer Undergraduate
Research Opportunity) projects funded in Summer 2014, tallying the results was a relatively painless process.
Though simple and relatively unobtrusive, this assessment process did
yield action-able insights. In 2014,
one of the areas in which faculty consistently rated their students lowest
involved the dissemination of results.
With this in mind, the Office of
Undergraduate Research & Creative Scholarship partnered with the
School of Graduate Studies to host
a summer “lunch and learn” workshop on preparing poster presentations in July 2015. Dr. Lora Lacey
-Haun and graduate intern Elizabeth Brown shared general guidelines for creating top-notch posters
and invited the workshop participants to evaluate several examples.
Exit surveys from the workshop
suggested students found the information shared by Dr. Lacey-Haun
and Ms. Brown valuable, and even
more importantly, preliminary
analysis of SUROP 2015 assessment data suggests significant improvement in students’ abilities to
disseminate their work. Close to
80% of their faculty ranked their
students as proficient or advanced
in their abilities to share their work. As
one faculty member remarked at the bottom of the rubric, the presentations at the
SUROP Poster Symposium were “very
creative and original.”
The primary goals of the Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative
Scholarship will continue to be supporting faculty mentors and making sure that
the work undergraduate researchers,
scholars, and artists do in archives, galleries, studios, labs, clinics and other
spaces will be the experiences they remember long after they graduate. But
designing appropriate, perhaps even minimal assessment procedures can help
achieve these goals.
For more information about undergraduate research and creative scholarship at
UMKC, please visit http://
www.umkc.edu/searchsite.
~Jane Greer
New University Assessment Plan and Timeline Kicks Off
The Fall 2015 Semester begins
with a fresh set of expectations
that the University Assessment
Committee (UAC) hopes to implement. The previous Assessment
Plan and Timeline covered the
academic years from Fall 2012
through Summer 2015. The new
plan and timeline runs through
Summer 2020.
Included in the plan and timeline
are five categorical objectives.
These include the following:
1) Academic and Co-Curricular
Assessment
2) General Education Core Program Assessment
3) Institutional Assessment Data
(ETS-PP, MFTs, NSSE, and exit
surveys)
4) Professional Development
5) Communication Strategies and
Building a Culture of Assessment.
Beginning this semester, there are
several goals and objectives that the
university expects to achieve. With
annual assessment reports due by
October 15, 2015, the UAC will seek
to ensure that all degree programs,
minors, certificates, as well as SA
and dual credit programs are performing effective assessment practices and reporting results in Weave.
Within General Education, rubrics
for Anchor I, Discourse I, and Focus
C courses will be validated. All results for the 2013-14 and 2014-15
academic cycles expect to be disseminated during this period as well.
New contributions will be made to
the FaCET faculty development series while programs not meeting assessment expectations and/or who
request assistance will continue to be
measured. Finally, revision of the
University Assessment Handbook
(2011) and the General Education
Assessment Plan should be completed
in Fall 2015.
New examples of effective assessment practices will be included on the
Assessment Web Page as part of an
ongoing process of continuous improvement.
There are additional objectives that
will be carried out in the Spring semester of the 2015-16 Academic
year. For more information on those
and future objectives go to the following link: http://www.umkc.edu/
assessment/downloads/20152020_UMKC_Assessment_Plan_and
_Timeline.pdf