April 1, 2001 Wong
Criterion III The institution is accomplishing its educational and other
purposes
I. Introduction: Evolution of the VCSU mission and commitment to assessment in the
90’s.
At the time of the 1992 Self-Study report, Valley City State University was
experiencing a period of significant change. The values and mission of the institution
were being adjusted, revised, and in some cases rewritten to meet the ever-changing
needs of our learners. The external pressures and internal responses are identified in
chapter one of this self-study. In 1992 the University mission stated:
“Consistent with the State Board of Higher Education Policy 100.1, Valley City
State University is a collegiate institution for the instruction of students in the
liberal arts and sciences to the level of the bachelor’s degree, and an academy for
the superior small college preparation of elementary and secondary school
teachers. Valley City State University performs a statewide leadership role in
rural education, including rural education policy planning and effective use of
instructional technology. The university also provides education in business and
organizational management to meet the human resource requirements of its
region. The University affords a regional access opportunity for persons seeking
general education for self-development or as preparation for graduate or
professional study.” (1992 Self-Study Report p. 13)
The mission statement appeared in many University publications including:
 Valley City State University Statement of Mission, Role and Scope
 Valley City State University Academic Plan
 SBHE Staff Report E, February 1, 1990
 State Board of Higher Education Minutes, February 1-2, 1990; July 10-11, 1990;
June 20-21, 1991.
 Valley City State University biennial budget requests, 1983-85, 1985-87, 198789, 1989-91, 1991-93.
 Partners for Quality, Report of the Advisory Panel on the Future of Higher
Education in North Dakota, 1986.
 Partners for Progress, Plan for 1990-1997, North Dakota University System
In 1992 the mission statement was well established and approved, but many key
members of the university community did not have a clear understanding of the nature
and purpose of assessment
(Level One of AAHE’s Principles of Best Practice,
1995: “Beginning Implementation of Assessment Programs”). The difficulties with
assessment are evident in the 1992 Self-Study Report pages 83-150. The sections of the
report for each academic division include a piece sub-titled “assessment”. However,
these sections more accurately describe the divisions’ strengths and concerns rather than
the assessment of programs and student learning.
It is clear from the list of public documents above that a shared understanding of the
purposes and advantages of assessment in instructional and non-instructional areas of the
university was emerging. The mission statement of the University did indicate the value
placed on student learning as well as the value of assessment to inform decisions
regarding student learning.
In April of 1996 Valley City State University experienced an NCA Focused Visit.
The document prepared for the Focused Visit included the same University mission
statement (approved by the State Board of Higher Education in 1992). One aspect of the
mission statement addressed in the Focused Visit Report is the reference to “instructional
technology.” During the 1997-98 academic year the faculty and the administration
expressed the desire to revise the University mission statement with the intent of making
it more closely aligned with the teaching and learning strategies being developed and
implemented at that time. This change in mission reflected changes in key institutional
areas: faculty attitude and approach to teaching and learning, student and employer
expectations. The University had just concluded a lengthy campus discussion regarding
the use of and adoption of notebook computers within a model of universal access. The
ultimate result of those discussions was the implementation of the notebook computer
initiative. With the advent of that campus-wide initiative, the focus of the university
experience shifted.
The 1997-98 “Baselines” document included a draft of the new mission statement:
“Valley City State University is a technologically enhanced, creative and supportive
community dedicated to helping individuals improve their lives through learning. The
State Board of Higher Education charters Valley City State University to offer
baccalaureate degrees in education, business, and the liberal arts and sciences, as a
member institution in the North Dakota University System.” Further, the “Baselines”
document indicated that the draft mission statement had been routed to Student Senate,
Staff Personnel Advisory Committee, Faculty Senate for review and had been approved
by the Institutional Improvement Committee in the Spring of 1997.
The following mission statement was approved by the State Board of Higher
Education in February 1998:
“Valley City State University is a learner centered community dedicated to
continuing improvement in meeting student needs. Preparing individuals to serve
in a changing world, the institution provides a quality educational experience in
an innovative culture and a technologically enhanced environment. A leader in
the effective use of instructional technologies, Valley City State University is a
member of the North Dakota University System and offers baccalaureate degrees
in education, business, and the liberal arts.”
II. Evolution of the VCSU assessment initiative: a developing focus on student
abilities
A clear understanding and a university wide commitment to the nature and purposes
of assessment was in its infancy in the early 90’s. Most academic departments had made
efforts to determine learning objectives for students. However, written reports indicated
that the measurement of those objectives was growing but spotty and inconsistent. The
initial VCSU assessment plan was developed during the 1991-92 academic year in
preparation for the 1992 NCA comprehensive evaluation. The plan had broad faculty and
staff involvement and acceptance and flowed naturally from the institutional purposes
(see 1996 VCSU focused report). Significant responsibility for implementation of the
1992 plan resided with the Curriculum Committee for assessment of General Education
(formerly Foundations Studies) and with the Institutional Improvement Committee
(formerly the Program, Planning, and Review Committee) for program assessment.
Faculty members representing the academic divisions serve on both committees. The
Vice President for Academic Affairs and division chairs serving on the Academic Policy
and Affairs Council (APAC) provided leadership and oversight for assessment processes.
Forums were held during the 1991-92 academic year to acquaint faculty with the
philosophy of outcomes assessment. Working sessions with the Academic Affairs and
Policy Council were used to review key components of the final draft and the link
between planning and assessment. The final version of the assessment plan was included
in the 1992 self-study. The implementation of that plan was slow to materialize (see
chapter one).
By the time of the 1996 Focused Visit, the significance and importance of campus
wide academic assessment was beginning to rise to the conscious level of the University
community and the administration. The technology directive from the State Board of
Higher Education and the notebook computer initiative combined to provide faculty and
administrators the motivation to begin exploration and experimentation with assessment.
Administrative funding, a FIPSE and Title III partnership grant provided the necessary
funding for faculty training, conference attendance, and the development of assessment
projects and processes (AAHE Level One, “Beginning Implementation of Assessment
Programs”). In particular, a joint faculty and administration trip to Alverno College, a
leader in outcomes assessment centered significant attention on the need for a
comprehensive assessment effort. University assessment efforts were gaining momentum
and broad-based campus support.
The contacts with Alverno College and the grants led to the organization of a set of
campus forums and encouraged the open discussion of teaching and learning and its
resultant outcomes. These discussions, referred to as Learner Centered Education (LCE)
meetings, set in motion processes that took the then known, “Foundation Studies
Objectives” and transformed them (though a series of changes) into the currently known
and used Abilities and Skills. With the development of the abilities and their related
skills, faculty began to embrace the concept of assessment in terms of student learning
outcomes.
During this time the most fundamental and pervasive developments relate to the
University’s commitment to a comprehensive philosophy referred to as Continuous
Improvement in Teaching and Learning (CITL). This philosophy evolved from the Total
Quality Improvement (TQM) efforts which were endorsed throughout the North Dakota
University system since 1989. The faculty at VCSU worked enthusiastically to apply
TQM principles in the classroom.
Among the key concepts of CITL were:
 focus on meeting the needs of learners





continuous improvement in teaching and learning, based on data
increasing student responsibility for their own learning
active collaboration between faculty and students for learning improvements
systematic experimentation and documentation to assess the value of innovations
frequent, continuous learning assessments throughout a course, throughout the
curriculum
In summary, CITL was a systematic philosophy and methodology for assessing the
needs and progress of learners for two purposes: to improve the teaching/learning
process and to document the results. In addition to the development of CITL, the
University was beginning the second year of a three-year FIPSE grant to create a systemwide laboratory for the reform of undergraduate education.
Because the institutional assessment plan was in development at the time of the 1992
NCA visit, the NCA evaluation team requested submission of an assessment report in
June, 1994. The report was to summarize VCSU’s progress toward documentation of
student achievement. The report outlined the evolution of the Total Quality philosophy
into Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning; receipt of a FIPSE grant used to
build a foundation for system-wide reform of undergraduate education; and various other
assessment initiatives undertaken after the comprehensive visit.
VCSU continued to build a foundation for vigorous leadership within the North
Dakota University System. Faculty, students, and staff broke through traditional barriers
by creating a campus climate indicative of risk-taking and innovation. The above
mentioned grants and a 3 year award from the Bush Foundation of Minneapolis, resulted
in two campus-wide initiatives: the development of the abilities based model of student
assessment and the VCSU degree requirement of a CD-ROM portfolio to demonstrate
learning and to enhance employment prospects. These two initiatives continue to serve
the campus well. The Abilities Based model has been instrumental in securing additional
Bush Foundation funds to support this new level of assessing student achievement. This
initiative also supported the design and development of the Viking eLearning Institute to
be proposed to the State Board of Higher Education during the late spring term, 2001.
The digital CD-ROM portfolio is well along its path of promoting accurate mapping of
skills and abilities across all majors including the General Education program and is
described more fully in this self study.
III. Abilities and Skills and the Student Digital Portfolio
In the 1996 focus visit report, p.33, Concern 5, special note was made of the slow
implementation of an assessment plan along with missing outcome measures. Progress
since this report has been significant. Grants as well as outcomes noted arising from the
implementation of the notebook initiative have changed the course but not the intent of
the 1996 plan. The deployment of notebook computers and the concomitant upgrading of
the campus network added some necessary capacity not known to the campus at the time
of the 1996 report. While continuous improvement remains a central feature of our work,
the datum upon which continuous improvement rests has changed. The expanded
capacity of the network has enabled a much richer and diverse commitment to student
and faculty digital portfolios. As such, the idea of an employer-based portfolio
(predicated on limited network space and dependent on a “capture the best works only”
philosophy) was abandoned for a more comprehensive, developmental portfolio.
Students could archive a larger evidentiary base of material and, rather than a narrow
subset of materials suitable for job interviews, the larger network capacity would allow
the student to document a larger retinue of their learning. As such, the portfolio audience
shifted from a prospective employer to one’s academic advisor and divisional home (of
the major). The purpose thus became, “how do you [the student] document evidence of
your achievement using the Abilities and Skills?” This change strategically aligned the
portfolio project as the basis for institutional assessment of student achievement.
This progression to a developmental portfolio combined with significant discontent
with the software and software vendor support for current portfolio oriented products
(SCAN skills), led the campus to abandon SCAN skills. A broad campus effort was
organized to find a suitable replacement that: 1) developed and articulated a set of
abilities, skills and levels of attainment suitable and specific to VCSU’s mission and
vision and possessed sufficient ease of use and function to allow students/faculty the
ability to map their progress from the Gen Ed’s to their major. Currently, a number of
grant requests are pending seeking to produce additional programming time to develop
our own tracking software based in the Abilities and Skills. The faculty reached
consensus on the Abilities and Skills during the Spring of 1999. From that consensus has
sprung consistent and broad faculty mapping of abilities and skills required throughout
the curriculum based upon a single template. This is a major feat in promoting our
assessment initiative. It is noteworthy that few higher education institutions have
achieved this feat.
A cautionary tale:
Since the 1996 focus report, administrative and other personnel changes continue to
plague the university and have directly affected our high expectations about the
deployment of an assessment plan. Notably, the office of the Vice President for
Academic Affairs has been afflicted with turnover. The office has been filled by six
individuals (one serving two terms separated by 2 intervening people) since the last
comprehensive visit and by two individuals since the focused visit of 1996. Additionally,
12 new faculty were hired in 1999, 5 in 2000 with the likelihood of 3-4 more in 2001. 21
new hires represents 20% faculty turnover during critical implementation time. The
assessment plan is the responsibility of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The
current office holder will have completed 2 consecutive years prior to the 2001 site visit,
is trained and published in the assessment literature and has coordinated the redesign and
implementation process for the assessment of student learning that is evident in this self
study. Existing resources are being re-allocated to assure implementation in the near and
far term. Moreover, additional budget support is being sought to develop not only
assessment capacities but also grant writing and consultation services (see Legislative
request for innovation funding, the Viking eLearning Institute).
Without consistent academic administrative leadership, the faculty have had to own
both the development and endorsement of the Abilities and Skills model particularly
during the early critical years of 1996-1999. Significantly, faculty leadership has
sustained the initiative to its present state. That is, progress has occurred, the assessment
discussion exists where it should, and faculty consensus has developed around the
direction and basis of assessing student learning. The assessment initiative is facultydriven and now (2001) quite focused.
IV. The contemporary context of assessment at VCSU
To say that nothing of substance has occurred in the intervening years since 1996
would be a clear error. However, to say that the momentum of the assessment process
has drifted is true. The last two years (1999-2001) has seen significant re-focus of the
faculty’s mapping of Abilities and Skills in majors. Additionally, the development of
effective templates for the evaluation of the portfolios is now being developed and shared
across the university and necessary policies are being considered and developed. The
university will now embark on our first year of institution wide assessments of student
portfolios in the AY 2001-2002. It is noteworthy of the innovative and risk taking culture
of VCSU that in AY 2000-2001, faculty were originally asked to submit Tenure and
Promotion files on CD digital portfolios. Believing that such a request was premature,
the faculty and the VPAA worked together to postpone this request if the faculty would
endeavor to identify necessary changes needed in the policy book regarding Tenure and
Promotion. Such changes are before the faculty this semester (Spring 2001) and have
been the first changes proposed in nearly 4 years. Not ironically, all tenure and
promotion applications in AY 2000-2001 were submitted on digital CD media, one of
which existed entirely on the web for the division and university review committees to
examine.
The institution recognizes the importance of institutionalizing assessment processes
regardless of grants or new appropriations. It must be done and will. The stability
apparent in the Vice President’s, along with his assessment expertise has given the office
the means of supporting and promoting assessment strategies and methodologies with the
faculty.
In addition, the VPAA’s coaching of other units outside of academics within the
university in the development of assessment strategies relevant to their units has been
beneficial. For example, Student Affairs personnel are being trained and sensitized to
developing appropriate assessment processes to support decision-making within and
between their units. We know that not all student learning occurs in the classroom. We
also know that “classroom” learning is but one strand in the larger picture of student
development. But when student and academic affairs can coordinate their assessment
efforts toward documenting the student experience, new opportunities arise. It is not
surprising then that assessment processes in student affairs are now being mapped
relative to their academic counterparts. A goal for the institution is to bring the Business
Affairs within that same context of assessment practices.
The ability of the institution to synthesize faculty and staff input into evolving action
plans remains one of the strengths of the institution. Efforts to deploy an assessment plan
clearly reflect this habit. Communication, via the network, and the ability of individuals
to meet and confer on common issues is a major conduit for change. Such interactions
and their ideas come forward to institutional committees and venues, where formal
change can occur or be recommended. The collaborative expectations of the President
and Executive Team (see Baselines) support decision making both vertically and
horizontally throughout the organization. At fault may be our apparent unwillingness to
live by the book (policy) when internal and external forces push us to change the book so
often. But documentation of the changes through the decade (see Chapter 1) reveals a
deliberate and systematic effort to heed the data, involve stakeholders and respond
effectively to investors and students. The Portfolio Project is an excellent example.
The consensus of the faculty in adopting the Abilities and Skills (spring 1999)
establishes the portfolio as the backbone of the assessment plan at VCSU. It is not the
only component of this plan. But it becomes the nexus in which expectations of faculty
for the baccalaureate define the framework for the student portfolios. The portfolio can
also contain extracurricular activities that bear heavily on many of the Abilities.
Activities involving student government, Learning to Live, volunteer work, pre-service
experiences can all become part of the evidentiary base that may or may not exist in the
final portfolio. That decision rests with the student. Existing alongside traditional
measures (captured in program reviews or institutional reports), the portfolio becomes the
key venue for documenting student achievement.
The mapping of the Abilities and Skills throughout academic divisions, especially
with majors has been a key venue for the developing framework of the portfolios. The
1995-1996 Assessment Plan identifies major components of the university’s plan to
assess student learning. That plan, fundamentally sound, has grown both in breadth of
measures used and in meaningfulness of measures gathered. Today, like in 1995, the
institution’s efforts are based upon the fundamental unit of the student portfolio. The
institution has expanded dramatically in the number of measures gathered and used to
support curriculum design and decision-making. The addendum identifies 87 formal
institutional reports collected and distributed to audiences in the university. These
traditional measures are combined with a series of nontraditional measures gathered
within Student Affairs and by local units, not all of which are academic. The amount of
data collected on students and teaching and learning is considerable.
V. Implementation of the Abilities and Skills model
As early as 1997 faculty members began to incorporate the eight abilities into their
specific courses. Along with the abilities, faculty members began and have now
completed the design of ability’s based projects within a course which students use to
demonstrate their mastery of the stated ability. At first these efforts were hit-and-miss; in
other words, not every course in every program identified an ability or two and included a
specific project. However, over the next two years more and more faculty members
engaged in the process of incorporating the abilities, skills, and projects into their
courses. The Bush Faculty Development grant and the second Title III grant provided
funding incentives for faculty members to engage in these assessment activities. Faculty
and students were included on Abilities committees. Students were introduced to the
Abilities and the concomitant projects through their course syllabi and projects in AY
2000-2001.
In addition, each division identified several of the eight abilities around which their
efforts would focus. Then within the divisions, departments / programs identified
specific ways by which their students could demonstrate the attainment of those specific
abilities. By 1999 the Shared Responsibility of the faculty, administration and students
for assessment at VCSU exhibited those characteristics associated with “Level Two:
Making Progress in Implementing Assessment Programs.” [see bulletin for evidence also
see syllabi]
VI. Efficacy of Assessment
Currently, Valley City State University is engaging in a series of necessary assessment
activities. Faculty members are more engaged with the development and interpretation of
assessment. At this point, more faculty, staff, and students have more of an
understanding of the purposes, procedures and uses of assessment. For example, the
Education Division has gone though two semesters of evaluation teacher certification
portfolios (a mixture of both paper and digital CD portfolios). Other academic units are
collecting, interpreting, and attempting to use the initial results gathered from our first
portfolios to design appropriate evaluation processes. This includes the Curriculum
Committee’s assessment of student learning in general education and the potential
deployment of a web-based assessment tool by Fall Term of 2001. As of yet, most
academic units are unable to draw clear conclusions from the data, but all involved,
faculty, administrators, staff, and students are becoming conversant in the language and
practice of portfolios and assessment.
<<Colleagues: I’m not sure what to do with this>>
VII. A new wrinkle to assessment: Institutional Performance Indicators
The recent adoption of the Legislative Roundtable report’s Six Cornerstones requires
each campus of the North Dakota University System to adopt the 6 cornerstones and their
concomitant performance measures as benchmarks for evaluating campus performance.
It marks the first time in the 90’s that system-wide performance measures have been
enacted. Recognizing that measures buoyed by economic motivations have their
limitations (especially with respect to the Liberal Arts), VCSU recognized that the
Cornerstones were themselves, insufficient to inform and guide a much larger strategic
plan. As the President notes in Chapter 1 of this self study, and described in this section,
a new and different political climate necessitated a different process to create and
promote the current strategic plan. Even as the assessment plan was forming around the
Abilities, this evolution was significantly changed by the legislative climate from 1999 to
2003. The sheer volume of required performance data combined with pre-existing habits
represents considerable confounding of what is traditional known as Institutional
Research (IR) with the assessment of student learning.
The production of the 2001-2006 Strategic Plan, now in draft form before the
community, has referenced all activity (action plans) within the framework of the
university mission and the Cornerstones. The mission, vision, core values, purposes and
Roundtable Goals comprise the first page of the strategic plan. Campus wide attention to
these organizing principles has been most acute during the last years of the decade. The
shifting political tide to support more campus autonomy and flexibility has been
instrumental in focusing attention on benchmarked measures. For example, during the
1999-2000 AY and again in 2000-2001, all academic units were asked to develop unit
strategic plans that link directly with the mission of the university and the Roundtable
report. The reader will find this information permeating planning documents and
processes from the University level to the departmental or service unit level. These
reference points also are found for student and public inspection in our catalog (real and
on-line versions). They become, in effect, assessment benchmarks across the university.
The integration of public accountability and assessment is succinct and it has occurred
without dampening focus on student learning.
The strategic plan and the assessment plan are designed to, respectively, align, focus
and integrate our action plans with assessment processes and effective decision-making.
The strategic plan will keep us focused on discrete goals that ensure the health and
vitality of the university. The changing socio-political climate of public universities
requires clear and discrete strategic plans to respond to the cry for accountability. The
assessment plan will be the main viaduct by which we come to know and agree that our
efforts and activities are, in fact, effective. And where they are not, alterations in the
course of our activities will be based upon data, qualitative and quantitative, macro- and
micro-level. The self study team was heartened to see that the extensive additions to the
1996 Assessment Plan currently in force fed the spirit of the ’96 plan by adding
considerable meat and breadth in both method and quality of data.
Criterion III attempts to relate an important history to our assessment efforts. The
history and the evidence provided in support of this self study, shows that we have
improved in the use and collection of data to document student learning and to support
decision-making. It is also clear that the challenge to improve our assessment efforts
remains present.
VIII. Academic Structure related to Assessment Activities
The best evidence of the proactive approach taken by faculty is to review divisional
assessment plans as they relate to both the division’s and the university’s mission and
assessment goals. These two items are extracted here to give the reader a better sense of
the broad base of activity underway within academic and student affairs units. As stated
in the 1995-1996 plan, such activities represent the broad institutionalization of an
assessment philosophy. This philosophy is also part of the of the division picture found
in the university catalog.
Overview of the six (6) Divisional Assessment missions and assessment goals.
Division of Business and Information Technology
Division Vision:
Members of the VCSU Division of Business and Information Technology are
professional educators dedicated to a creative learning environment that fosters
the development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will serve individual,
community, and global needs.
Division Mission and goals:
The overall mission of the Division of Business and Information Technology is to
prepare students for gainful employment in the various areas of business. The
overall goal may be divided into sub goals which include the following: (1) to
provide training for students with interests in the area of business administration,
office management, and computer information systems; (2) to prepare business,
technology, and vocation-technical teachers for secondary schools, and
vocational-technical teachers for post-secondary schools; (3) to provide training
for the development of marketable skills and to provide entry-level job training;
and (4) to provide business administration, business education, and computer
information systems majors with a strong foundation for graduate work.
Courses leading to a major in the Division of Business and
Information Technology will help students develop the following
abilities (from Abilities & Skills, 2000):
Communication
effectively
Convey
information
and
knowledge
Problem Solving
Obtain, organize and interpret information to
provide creative critical solutions
Global awareness
Understand business, cultural and political
relationships
in a global economy
Collaboration
Build team relationships for successful
outcomes to objectives
ASSESSMENT
The Division of Business and Information Technology is committed to continuous
improvement. The assessment process is designed to provide feedback and
promote program changes.
Chronological Order of Assessment Events:
1. Application and acceptance
 The application portion of the process may begin as early as the
completion of the second semester of the student’s sophomore
year.
2.
Progress Checks






Upon acceptance into the Division of Business and Information
Technology, the student, with guidance from his/her major advisor,
will review his/her program of study and the portfolio
requirements.
Students will create portfolio projects demonstrating required
abilities in applicable coursework.
Students will be encouraged to complete an internship related to
career goals.
Enroll in a senior seminar during the last semester the senior year
to complete the portfolio.
Take the Educational Testing Service Major Field Test. This
applies to Business Administration majors only.
Write an essay describing the attainment of his/her
educational/career goals. (Give the essay to the Division’s
secretary two weeks prior to final exams.)

Schedule an exit interview with the Division faculty for the last Friday of the
semester before finals. (Schedule with the Division’s secretary.)

During the last week of his/her academic program, the student will
do the following:
1. present his/her senior portfolio and
2. participate in an exit interview with Division faculty.
Time Frame for Implementation of Assessment Plan
1. All students who will graduate through the 1998-2000 VCSU
Bulletin and who plan to major or who are currently a declared
major in one of the Divisional programs will be required to apply
for admission to the Division of Business and Information
Technology.
2. All faculty teaching courses within the Division of Business and
Information Technology will make specific reference to major
program goals on their course outlines commencing the fall
semester of 1999.
3. By the spring semester of 2000, each faculty member teaching
courses in the Division of Business and Information Technology
will utilize an assessment tool of his/her choice for the purpose of
improving classroom learning experiences.
4. The Division will have in place measurement devices for the pregraduation assessment phase (portfolio assessment tool) by the end
of spring semester of the 1999-2000 school year. Division faculty
will review portfolio projects created in classes and begin
developing assessment tools at the end of the 1999 fall semester.
5. The Division will incorporate minors in the assessment plan by the
end of the 2000-2001 school year.
Program Assessment:
The program review covers the four majors offered by the Department
of Business and Information Technology. Within the Business
Administration Major, there are four areas of Concentration. Office
Management is a stand-alone Major, but is included with Business
Administration because of the similarity in course requirements.
Business Education and Vocational Technical Education offer two
majors each. Computer Information Systems has three areas of
concentration.
The program review was conducted for each of the majors by
assessing:
 Current level of Program Quality
 Plans to improve Program Quality

Relationship of Program to Institution’s Mission

Program Productivity
The program review involved numerous activities including, but not limited to:






Developing a Mission Statement
Reviewing and Revising Curriculum
Assessing Teaching Load
Assessing Student Advising and Assessment Procedure
Developing a Map of Abilities
Developing the Student Portfolio Exit Process

Reviewing and Analyzing Alumni and Employer Surveys



Evaluating Accreditation Standards and Model Curriculum
Complying with State Licensing Standards
Reviewing Membership in Professional Organizations
Past program review and accreditation reports were used to assess the quality of the program,
and whether the department was fulfilling its mission. Areas of concern outlined in those past
assessments were reviewed and addressed. Teaching loads were analyzed, and a new faculty
person was requested in order to strengthen the Business Administration Major and reallocate
faculty resources to support the growing area of Computer Information Systems. Based on
accreditation standards and model curriculums, the Division completely revised the Computer
Information Systems program and made revisions in other business programs.
The Division of Communication Arts and Social Science
Goals: The general goals of the Division are: 1) to serve the fundamental needs
of all students through courses aimed at achieving stated skills in the
Communication Arts; 2) to help all students achieve a better understanding of
the common cultural heritage, beliefs, and values through the study of the
humanities; 3) to promote an understanding of social organization and
interactions through the study of history and the social sciences; and 4) to
promote global awareness and appreciation of diverse cultures through the study
of language and opportunities to study in other countries.
Abilities:
Courses leading to a major in the Division of Communication Arts and Social Science
will help students develop the following abilities:
Communication:
Aesthetic Engagement / Problem Solving:
Problem Solving / Technology:
Global Awareness:
Excellent writing and speaking abilities
Sophisticated analytical skills
Competent researcher
Synthesizes language, life, and culture
Assessment Activities / Outcomes:
The Division of Communication Arts and Social Science uses a multi-faceted assessment
process to ensure high quality and promote valuable changes within its programs.







Development of criteria and policies for admission to and continuance in the
programs.
Adoption of the Abilities Model.
Clinical and field-based experiences with review by student, cooperating
instructor or employer, and faculty mentor.
Student portfolio development.
Student evaluation of course objectives.
Digital portfolios as an exit requirement.
[Divisional improvement plan.]
Assessment of student success takes place from entry to exit:



General education courses are linked to the abilities.
Major courses track abilities to higher levels.
Portfolio development documents abilities.

Successful completion of field experiences, internships, or study abroad.
Divisional expectations of students are high:



The Division and its programs have specific requirements, goals, and objectives.
The requirements are linked to University abilities and skills.
Specified course projects are linked to University abilities and skills.
The Division builds systems for change through the following:
 Through assessment and reflection, abilities and portfolios continue to evolve.
 Definitions and rubrics for abilities and skills reflect University program
objectives.
 Employer surveys provide input regarding the changing needs of the workplace.
Exit information regarding new graduates is gathered through:



Surveys of first-year teachers conducted by the VCSU Career Planning and
Placement Office.
Surveys of employers who have hired VCSU graduates conducted by the Career
Planning and Placement Office.
Focus group discussions with graduating seniors.
.
The Division of Education and Psychology
Goals: The broad goals of the teacher education program at Valley City State
University are to prepare entry-level teachers who: (1) are capable of teaching and
guiding students of varying backgrounds, strengths, and needs; (2) are competent
decision makers; (3) are skilled in planning, implementing, and evaluating
learning experience for students: (4) view decision making as a reflective process;
(5) understand and are committed to the moral dimensions of teaching; (6) select
and apply technology appropriately; and (7) accept the view that professional
growth and development is an on-going, never-ending process.
Abilities: In addition to developing the eight General Education Abilities at a
higher level, students in the Education and Psychology Division will become
proficient in the teaching abilities outlined in the Professional Decision Making
Model; Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating.
Planning: While planning, the teacher must make decisions regarding areas such
as goals and objectives, the degree of background building required, and specific
materials and methods to use.
Implementation: The implementation function requires the teacher to carry out
the plans that have been made. During the actual teaching phase numerous
decisions need to be made. Often times, they need to be made quickly as the
teacher responds to students reactions, comments, and instructional needs. As a
result, modification of prepared plans becomes the rule rather than the exception.
Evaluation: During the evaluation phase of decision making the teacher
determines the degree to which the instructional objectives were attained.
Determining the degree of re-teaching that is needed, recording information, and
reporting progress are some of the areas within the evaluation phase of decision
making.
Reflection: The teacher plans, implements, and evaluates by using feedback in a
reflective manner. During the entire process it is essential the teacher realizes that
professional growth and development is continuous.
Assessment Activities / Outcomes: In its reaccreditation visit to VCSU, the 1996
visitation team from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
recognized Valley City State University for Exemplary Practice and noted:
Valley City State University through its collaborative work with the Center for
Innovation in Instruction (CII) and the Kathryn Center, and through the initiative of
its faculty in pursuing grants, has achieved a synergy of vision and mission in
action which would not normally be possible for an institution of its size and
financial resources. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Noting that institutional culture is notoriously resistant to change, VCSU has
achieved virtual transformation of the culture of the entire institution…these
multiple efforts have worked in concert, focusing philosophy, and broad range of
human and financial resources, to create institution-wide movement toward their
long range vision to be a leader in technology in education.
While the entire campus community is credited for the commendable NCATE review, the
unit faculty members and teacher education students played a critical leadership role and
they continue to exert their influence as key players in the transformation of teaching and
learning.
The Division of Education and Psychology at Valley City State University has met
the accreditation standards of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) since 1964. Building on a tradition of excellence and
committed to continuous improvement, it uses a multi-faceted feedback loop to
ensure high quality and promote effective changes within the program:





Regular analysis of criteria and policies for admission to and continuance in the
program.
Adoption of the Abilities Model.
Clinical and field-based experiences with review by student, cooperating
instructor, and faculty mentor.
Student portfolio development.
Continuous student evaluation of course objectives.



First and third year teacher education graduates complete the General Knowledge
Survey to determine the degree of satisfaction related to preparation. Principal
and teacher evaluation surveys accompany this survey to assess the performance
of those graduates.
Digital portfolios as an exit requirement.
Divisional improvement plan.
Assessment of student success takes place from entry to exit:




General Education courses are linked to the abilities.
Major courses track abilities to higher levels.
Portfolio development documents abilities.
Successful completion of field experiences.
Departmental expectations of students are high:



The Teacher Education program has specific requirements, goals, and objectives.
Teacher Education program objectives are linked to specified abilities of
planning, implementing and evaluation.
Specified course projects are linked to University abilities and skills.
The Division builds systems for change through the following:




Through assessment and reflection, abilities and portfolios continue to evolve.
Definitions and rubrics for abilities and skills reflect University program
objectives.
Field site visitations identify skills of effective teachers in today’s changing
classrooms.
A PT3 grant application was awarded based on technology needs in today’s
schools.
Exit information regarding new teachers is gathered through:


Surveys of first year teachers conducted by the VCSU Career Planning and
Placement Office.
Surveys of administrators who have hired VCSU first year teachers conducted by
the VCSU Career Planning and Placement Office.
The Division of Education and Psychology is committed to meeting the needs of all
learners and ensuring their success. Assessment and evaluation are critical components
of that commitment.
The Division of Fine Arts
Goals: The Division of Fine Arts provides opportunities for all students to develop
aesthetic responsiveness, cultural and global awareness, and historical and contemporary
perspective. Students pursuing a comprehensive education in art or music develop a
deeper understanding of these fundamental abilities. The Fine Arts Division:
(1) encourages individual expression through nonverbal communication and active
collaboration in creative endeavor;
(2) provides elementary and secondary art and music education students with the
essential knowledge and skills to become successful classroom teachers; and
(3) prepares the student for professional study in Fine Arts. The Division supports
the institutional mission in instructional technology while recognizing the
divisional role in enriching human experience and cultivating a sense of
community.
The Division of Fine Arts is comprised of the Department of Art and the Department of Music.
Information about Fine Arts degree programs and courses appears in the 2000-2002 VCSU
Bulletin, pages 57-62, 72-74, and 91-93.
Department of Art
Goals: The primary functions of the Department of Art are: (1) providing superior
training for public school art teachers; (2) providing excellent studio training for artists;
and (3) contributing to the cultural environment of the campus and the community. The
Department supports the institutional mission in instructional technology while
recognizing the departmental role in encouraging individual expression, enriching the
human experience, and cultivating an artistic community.
Department of Music
Goals: The goals of the Department of Music are to: (1) provide superior training for
future public school music teachers; (2) assist musicians to perform at their highest
possible level of ability; (3) develop in students a broad understanding of music within
the context of a liberal arts education; and (4) contribute to the cultural environment of
campus and community.
The Abilities: The department recently applied for and received a Bush Grant entitled
The Mapping and Assessing of Music Department Abilities/Skills Requirements and
Student Portfolios. The purpose of this grant is to develop a comprehensive and cohesive
departmental plan for Abilities and Assessment in order to:
(1) Determine the specific skills and levels of the Abilities requirements for the VCSU
Music Department
(2) Develop language for the skill levels which better reflects the expectations and
achievements of the music students at VCSU
(3) Map the music courses which fulfill these requirements
(4) Develop an assessment plan for the VCSU Abilities and Skills within the
Music Department; to incorporate that plan into the department’s present, working
assessment model
(5) Develop a plan for assessing student portfolios within the department
(6) Insure that all of the above areas of Abilities, mapping and assessment form a cohesive
plan for future assessment
Assessment Activities / Outcomes:
Department of Art: Program quality is measured by internal evaluation at the
department level and by comparison with state program standards. The Department
meets all requirements in teacher preparation established the State Department of Public
Instruction and NCATE.
The Art Department has developed a portfolio review process. A small minority of students
entering the art program has fairly developed art-making skills. Those students enter the program
through an entrance portfolio review. The faculty members use this review to assess the student’s
development and place them in the appropriate classes. The majority of the students entering the
Department have limited verbal communication skills. Those students take a foundations course
in order that the faculty can better assess the student’s skills and guide their development. The
students, generally, follow a direct path of studio skill building courses. Each course in the
program has been developed to build on the previous one. The Foundations course leads to
Design, Design to Drawing I, Printmaking I, Painting I, and Ceramics I. The first level studio
courses lead to the second level studio courses, and the second level to the third. If the student is
not successful in fulfilling the requirements of any of the courses they work closely with the
faculty, through tutoring, to accomplish the criteria of the course. The student receives the same
guidance through the art history sequence. From the beginning of their art program experience
the student is preparing for their senior portfolio. The senior portfolio is a screening for the
senior exhibition. The student will present a professional exhibition, complete with a written
artist’s statement before they qualify for graduation. The student will graduate with a completed
professional portfolio that demonstrates the student’s course criteria accomplishment.
The art education students also need to accomplish the professional education track for
their degree. This track includes a successful PRAXIS / PPST test, the professional
education sequence, the student teaching review, student teaching, and the education
portfolio. The art faculty members work closely with both the student and the Education
Division through this track.
The Department is in the process of developing and integrating ability language
assessment into the existing portfolio assessment process. The Art Department has
mapped the abilities in the program and is working on the assessment as it relates to the
abilities portfolio.
Department of Music:
Assessment: Evidence of quality in the educational programs is provided through the
Department’s accreditation by the National Association of Schools of Music, through
placement records of graduates, and through the Department’s Plan for Assessment of
Music Student Achievement accompanied by documentation of that achievement. The
Department’s assessment plan had its origins in the 1985 visit of the BUSH consultant.
Over the last fifteen years it has been continuously refined, through faculty observation of
test results, through additional input from the 1994 NASM consultant and the 1997
NASM evaluation team, and through recommendations made by the chair of the
department who serves as an NCA consultant-evaluator and a member of the NCA
Accreditation Review Council. The assessment mechanism has become a seamless part
of the departmental operation, so that assessment, documentation of student achievement,
review of results, adjustment of the curricula, and improvements in instruction have
become a natural and ongoing part of departmental life. The department prioritizes
operational and library funds to strengthen the necessary instructional areas. The Plan is
understood by faculty and students alike and provides a practical and thorough system for
identification of program strengths and areas for improvement, as well as for evaluation
and documentation of student achievement. The Division conducts assessment in the
following areas, and details regarding the assessments are available in the Divisional
Narrative:
Assessment of Ability to Read Musical Notation
Assessment of Functional Piano Skill.
Assessment of Applied Music
Assessment of Professional Education
Assessment of Content Knowledge and Music Teaching Competencies
Peripheral Assessment Mechanisms
Division of Health and Physical Education
Goals: The Division of HPE will develop among its students the knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and values that come from sports and physical activity throughout one’s life. It
is the primary function of the division to: (1) prepare students for teaching and coaching;
(2) promote a lifelong commitment for physical fitness among all VCSU students; and
(3) support the university’s mission to a learner-centered caring community committed to
continuous improvement through the use of instructional technologies.
Abilities: Courses leading to a major in the Division of Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation will help students develop the following abilities:
Problem Solving:
Wellness:
Technology:
Develops thoughtful and creative solutions
Manages self and others professionally, for the well-being of the
team or organization.
Researches and presents materials competently; understands the
professional potential of technological tools.
Assessment Activities / Outcomes: While the entire campus community is credited for
the commendable NCATE review, the unit faculty members and teacher education
students played a critical leadership role and they continue to exert their influence as key
players in the transformation of teaching and learning.

Adoption of the Abilities Model.






Clinical and field-based experiences with review by student, cooperating
instructor, and faculty mentor.
Student portfolio development.
Continuous student evaluation of course objectives.
First and third year teacher education graduates complete the HPE Alumni Survey
to determine the degree of satisfaction related to preparation.
Digital portfolios as an exit requirement.
Divisional improvement plan.
Assessment of student success takes place from entry to exit:




General Education courses are linked to the abilities.
Major courses track abilities to higher levels.
Portfolio development documents abilities.
Successful completion of field experiences.
Departmental expectations of students are high:
The VCSU Health & Physical Education graduate will be able to demonstrate:
a.) higher order thinking skills and the application of critical thinking skills
the ability to effectively communicate (i.e., written, verbal, presentation, etc.)
b.) concrete application of content knowledge
c.) the ability to access relevant information
d.) the ability to work cooperatively
e.) the appropriate use of technology
Is this linked to the abilities?
The divisional abilities of Communication, Problem-solving, Wellness, and
Technology are four of the eight university Abilities (see appendices). Students must
complete the fourth level of five of the eight Abilities in order to satisfy the graduation
requirement. The fifth ability is the student’s choice, probably from his/her second major
or the academic minor(s).
Have you built in systems for change based on what you know? What are they?
The HPE Assessment Plan, continued use of alumni surveys (every other year),
course assessments, senior exit interviews, and the quality of the HPER students’
digitized portfolio will provide feedback. This program review, with feedback from the
outside evaluator and the VCSU VPAA, will provide us with valuable advice on the
effectiveness of the curriculum and instruction. Curricular/program changes could then
be proposed for the next bulletin (catalog) for 2002-2004.
Surveys:
One and three year (program) graduate surveys have been administered in the
following summers: 1996, 1998, & 2000 (see report in appendices by Dennis). Is there
other data? Course assessments: spring, 1999, and fall and spring, 2000; senior exit
interview questions (interview results spring, 2000).
The Division of Mathematics and Science
Goals: The Division of Mathematics and Science seeks to encourage and develop the
ability of those students interested in pursuing a career in the pure and applied sciences,
mathematics, and related areas. In the course of accomplishing these goals the Division
also seeks to:
(1) provide secondary education majors with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes which enable
them to teach successfully in their chosen field of specialization;
(2) provide elementary education majors the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes, in
the areas of Mathematics and Science, in order to plan and present learning activities for
the elementary classroom;
(3) provide courses in general education for the liberal arts student;
(4) provide pre-professional students with academic counseling, courses, and programs
that will prepare them for the professional field and school of their choice; and
(5) provide all students and members of the community opportunities for learning
experiences in areas related to Mathematics and Science.
Abilities: Courses leading to a major in the Division of Mathematics and Science will
help students develop the following abilities:
Problem Solving / Technology:
Collaboration:
Global Awareness:
Communication:
Obtaining, organizing, and interpreting information
Ability to work with others
Recognize relationships
Ability to convey information and knowledge
IX. A commitment to the Portfolio
There is no question that the commitment to the Abilities is serious. All the divisions
along with faculty have spent considerable time coming to consensus on the Abilities
required of students majoring in their division. The extensive mapping of those abilities
along with the skills (and the requisite acceptable level) performance is the backbone of
the assessment initiative. Faculty have been diligently forming evaluation procedures in
anticipation of portfolios to be submitted next year. Templates to judge the portfolios are
in the development stage and have been featured in a number of Monday afternoon
workshops sponsored by the Bush Foundation. April 12, nationally known consultant
and leading authority on assessment, Dr. Peter Ewell, of NCHEMS, visited VCSU. His
expertise and support added considerable support to the initiative. He also identified
significant issues to be resolved in the near term. Paramount among them is how the
divisions will confront transfer students entering the university with three years of credit
at another institution.
Institutional data on student achievement will supplement the portfolio analyses. A
robust mixture of outcome measures, institutional performance measures, data gathered
from exit interviews and future employers will support the growing experience derived
from an analyses of the portfolios. While VCSU is not staking its entire assessment on
the portfolio, the portfolio lies at the center of our assessment of the student experience in
the classroom.
A broader discussion of student achievement follows later in the report. Other
instructional activities will be discussed in appropriate criterion measures. For example,
our extension program in Fargo and Jamestown is described in other criterion measures – see
criterion V, p. xxx. Enrollment Info will be provided in separate reports in Resource Room; (see
data from Student Affairs). This data includes traditional measures such as time to completion,
distribution of grades by faculty by major, retention by major, minor. All reports are generated
by gender and year of student (frosh/soph/jr/sr). As noted in this self study, there have been two
programmatic revisions (Business and Health, Physical Education). Coming from the results of a
program review, those changes and the analyses completed can be found in the respective
program reviews provided to the site team in the Resource Room. One should note that no major
structural or functional changes in academic organization or delivery has occurred since the 1992
self study. A description of our partnerships with corporate sector can be found in Criterion V.
:
X. The faculty: the key to our learner-centered culture
The faculty remains the critical social and intellectual capital of the University’s
endeavors. As the president has pointed out, despite the changing political climate and
within the context of becoming the leaders of instructional technology in the nation, at
the heart of the teaching and learning endeavor is the faculty. They have been a
consistent and innovative force. The table below summarizes the distribution of degrees,
tenure and rank across all six divisions.
Faculty by Division, Rank, Degrees held
Division
CASS
#faculty
Tenured
12
5
13
9
data to be inserted 4-2-01
Terminal
Degree
5
Masters level
7
Prof
Assoc
Assist
Instructor
Lecturer
Education
Prof
Assoc
Asst
Instructor
7
6
Lecturer
Fine Arts
7
2
2
5
8
5
1
7
9
7
7
2
11
5
3
8
60
31
25
35
Prof
Assoc
Assist
Instructor
Lecturer
Health PE
Prof
Assoc
Assist
Instructor
Lecturer
Science
Prof
Assoc
Assist
Instructor
Lecturer
Business
Prof
Assoc
Assist
Instructor
Lecturer
Total
It is important to note that 5 recently hired tenure track faculty must initiate and
complete a doctorate prior to the award of tenure. All five are currently enrolled and on
schedule. The recruitment and hiring of full-time and especially part-time faculty with
terminal degrees has become extremely difficult. This “grow-your-own” philosophy has
been implemented quite successfully with both faculty and technology staff. The
university endeavors to assist these faculty by academic assignments conducive to
conducting the necessary research and writing for their respective doctoral programs.
The recruitment and retention of a highly motivated, skilled and innovative faculty is
no small chore. Our location, depressed salaries and a sagging national economy,
especially in the agricultural sector present obvious challenges. Most noteworthy is the
high caliber of individuals the university has been able to retain and recruit. Our focus on
teaching and learning within a technologically sophisticated environment has been a key
linchpin to faculty recruitment. But the challenge to recruit and retain will remain with
us. Once experienced and trained into our notebook culture, these newly-hired faculty
become highly sought after by other Universities.
Adjunct and Part-Time Instruction
VCSU has held a long tradition of minimizing the use of adjunct professors. Both by
policy sec xxx and by practice, the faculty is committed to an educational experience
directed and led by full-time professors. The consistency and quality of instruction, both
in content and consistency (especially in advising), provides the best of learning
environments. Student comments repeatedly affirm this value in alumni studies.
Such a commitment remains a paramount strength of the institution. The fulltime
faculty deliver an overwhelming majority of the curriculum (over 621 courses annually).
In AY 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, an adjunct budget of $163,220 represented 6% of the
total dollars allocated to full and part time faculty salaries. 94% of all salary dollars went
to full-time professors. Of the 6%, ¾ went to true part time instruction. The remaining ¼
goes to full-time faculty accepting overload assignments. One can also conclude that
overload assignments are not an extensive problem. Given the low salary standards in
the state, overload represents one means of additional income. The commitment to
instruction by full-time faculty is overwhelming. It remains to be seen whether the
legislative climate will allow VCSU to sustain this commitment to full-time instruction.
Faculty Assignments
The faculty annual assignment is 12 credits per semester or approximately 8 3-credit
classes an academic year. Inspection of annual course offerings (an average of 610
courses a year) reveal that a vast majority of the curriculum is comprised of 3 credit
offerings (273) followed by 2 credit (194) and one credit offerings (101). Four credit
offerings exist predominately in the sciences and are few (54).
The recent introduction of 8-week courses, on a very limited basis, has provided
additional opportunities for students to pick up specialized courses and offered faculty a
means of additional income. Class size generally approaches a 17-1 student faculty ratio.
There are few classrooms available to service classes larger than 50. And while class
size and courseloads seem reasonable, considerable student contact time exists. Add
governance, service to the broader community, scholarly and artistic activity and one
quickly sees a committed but taxed workforce. One additional faculty line was added in
AY 2000-2001(Business). Another will be added in AY 2001-2002 (Education).
Strategic planning processes will enable divisions to link staffing requests to goals and
mission.
A history of budget cuts through the early 90’s is the source of some of this staffing
pressure. Retiring faculty were not replaced to meet budget allocation. Internal
reallocation to support the notebook initiative along with the assignment of faculty to
administrative posts also prevented replacement of faculty. However, as grants have
picked up some of the one-time re-allocation costs, and as enrollment stabilizes
opportunities to restore needed staff give rise to optimism. The infrastructure to support
instruction remains inadequate and is an issue in need of attention for the coming decade.
Only 3 of the six divisions have a full-time administrative assistant.
Faculty Release time
Research grants, athletic coaching and/or administrative assignments comprise the
three largest categories of faculty release time. For example, the Vice President for
Academic Affairs is the only full-time academic administrator. Three faculty are on fulltime release to service grants, research or support services (Tech Ed, Instructional Tech
and the information technology center respectively). The academic divisions are lead by
a division chair from the faculty with ¼ release. Two division chairs have an additional
¼ release to either chair a department (music) or to supervise a large teacher education
unit. Governance is a flat decision structure emphasizing collaborative decision-making.
Divisions hold elections for division chairs, with the elector recommended to the VPAA
for either appointment or re-appointment.
VCSU is a member of the Dakota 10 (Dak 10) athletic conference under the auspices
of the NAIA. Coaching duties comprise significant release time assignments for faculty
in the division of Health and Physical Education. Two coaches hold tenured positions
(track and women’s volleyball). All other coaches are non-tenure track appointments.
The intention of the university is to fill faculty-coaching appointments with non-tenure
track appointments.
Considering all faculty release time appointments, the total amount of release time to
administer the academic units amounts to 9.25 faculty FTE. Replacements are generally
part-time adjuncts which define the major need for adjuncts on campus, ie. To fill in
behind these release time assignments. Coordinators of this NCA self-study report were
granted up to ¾ release time.
Faculty Development and Scholarly Activity
The institution is committed providing development opportunities for faculty. The
VCSU policy book provides clear faculty priorities. The faculty evaluation process (sec
600) identifies general guidelines for faculty effort: 80% teaching, 20% scholarly
activity, 20% service to the university and community. Divisions and departments are
free to align these loads with annual development plans for either the individual or the
unit. That is, special initiatives and/or challenges can reflect different loads for faculty
assignments. An noted previously, faculty have maintained a extraordinarily high
commitment to university life. The success in grant and foundation awards has supported
an extraordinary development program focused on the development of the Abilities and
Skills. However, recent years has seen an increase in the number of research grants and
program grants submitted by faculty. Currently in AY 2000-2001, nearly $4.5 M in grant
applications went out with nearly 60% of this activity awarded and/or in operation this
same year. The amount and success of grant writing by this faculty is substantial. Driven
in part by necessity and inspired by vision, the faculty continue to seek out funding
opportunities in support of teaching and learning. This success also raises important
questions about the role of research in an institution committed to teaching.
Institutional support of faculty development is both direct and subtle. Fiscally, nearly
$51, 188 appropriated dollars are directed to support faculty development. This includes
providing state fleet cars for all in state travel, $ 11, 200 for out of state travel, $ 9,938 in
conference fees and activities and nearly $ 6, 500 in annual dues and memberships. The
Vice President for Academic Affairs has also supplemented conference travel if the
faculty member is presenting a refereed article, book or part of a panel presentation.
Faculty have also been funded and sent to represent VCSU at trade-education shows
relevant to the mission of VCSU, such as IBM’s International ThinkPad University
Conference, WICHE’s annual conference on technology and education and the national
EDUCAUSE conference.
VCSU, however, is not satisfied. The University does not have a sabbatical plan to
accommodate paid leaves in pursuit of advanced degrees. Nor the University have
procedures to accommodate those faculty completing the production of doctorates that
have been required as a prerequisite for tenure. The University also provides minimal
assistance in the production of published manuscripts and articles. The list of scholarly
productions by the faculty is available as an addendum to this self study. The amount of
scholarly work, again, within the context of intense teaching assignments is considerable.
There is no “publish or perish” yet, the creation of knowledge occurs. Of more important
note is the growing opportunity for undergraduates to participate and conduct original
research with their professors.
Students : A profile
This section is to provide a brief profile of the student profile. Additional information is
provided in the NCA resource room. The Report to Investors is a significant resource.
Appended to this report is the Enrollment Management data profile of student enrollment
and retention over the last 10 year period.
Briefly, Valley City State University students come from 21 states, three Canadian
provinces and eight foreign countries.
In the last decade, enrollment has remained steady; fall 1990 enrollment was 1082 with
fall 2000 enrollment at 1090. We have seen a relatively dramatic shift in the percentages
of in-state and out-of state students. In 1990, 89% of VCSU’s enrollment was made up
of in-state students, with 11% being out of state. In 2000, that percentage was 78%, with
out-of-state students making up 22% of the enrollment. Fifty-five percent of the
enrollment comes for the surrounding seven counties.
Seventy-nine percent of the student body is made up of traditional students, those who
are 24 and younger. Of those, 77% are 21 and younger. Of the 21% of the enrollment
that is non-traditional, 41%, or 95 of 234 are full-time students.
Students of minority cultures make up about 10% of the student body with Non-Resident
Aliens at 4.58%, Native Americans 2.29%, Hispanic and Black/Non-Hispanic at 0.82%
each, and Asian/Pacific Islander at 0.45% of the enrollment.
Fifty-five percent of the campus population is female.
Freshman numbers in the last decade have ranged from a low of 170 in 1994 to a high of
212 in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Fall 2000 freshmen numbered 186. The average ACT for
the Fall 2000 freshman class was 21.1, which is slightly below the North Dakota State
Average of 21.4, but slightly above the national average of 21. Because only three
percent of the freshman class takes the SAT, an average is not computed. The average
GPA for the freshman class was 3.13 on a four point scale.
Transfers numbered 88 in the fall of 2000, compared to 69 in the fall of 1990.
XI. General Education
The General Education Program at Valley City State University is shaped by the
recognition that individuals need an anchor of core of fundamental knowledge and
abilities to manage their lives effectively in a rapidly changing world. This General
Education program philosophy is presented in the 2000-2001 Bulletin (page 29), along
with the framework for assisting students in pursuing these essential studies:
Today’s graduates must be prepared for the rapid pace of change. They need
fundamental abilities and a firm anchor in understanding the world around them
in the midst of change. To stay viable in the marketplace and to enjoy satisfaction
in their personal lives, and to contend with life’s moral and ethical issues, they
must develop the ability to learn effectively and an inclination toward lifelong
learning. The General Education Requirements, therefore, focus on eight
Abilities which will assist the student in achieving these goals.
The Curriculum Committee has been given the responsibility of reviewing the General
Education (formerly Foundation Studies) Program. In 1995 the Curriculum Committee
developed an assessment process for courses included in the Foundation Studies which
monitors the degree to which courses meet stated objectives. The plan for assessing
Foundation Studies was approved by the Faculty Senate in February 1996. Courses
designated as part of Foundation Studies must: (1) meet several of the Foundation
Studies objectives; and, (2) include an explanation in the course syllabus outlining how
the designated Foundation Studies objectives are assessed. Assessment data is shared
with the Curriculum Committee at least once a year.
The General Education Program Framework
The name of the program changed to “General Education” in 1997. Currently the
program is shaped by eight “Abilities,” or areas of study, that restate in behavioral terms
the specific components of a liberal arts education formerly articulated as “Foundation
Studies Objectives.” The insert “Coming into Focus” between pages x and x of the 1996
Focused Visit Report illustrates the way faculty working on this project understood the
relationship between the earlier Foundation Studies Objectives and the Eight Abilities.
This shift to behavioral terms was facilitated by a 1995 FIPSE grant focused on academic
assessment. Participants (primarily faculty) determined that, in order to measure progress
or achievement of the Foundation Studies Objectives, students would have to
demonstrate particular behaviors, or abilities. Thus the term “abilities” refers not only to
a set of personal, social, and civic skills, but also to the content knowledge underlying
these skills.
The Eight Abilities and their related skills are presented in Table 5.1 below:
Table 5.1: VCSU Abilities and Skills
Ability
Related Skills
Ability
Related Skills
Aesthetic
Engagement
Communication
Receptivity
Visualization
Written
Spoken
Visual
Performance
Works with Diversity
Understands
System
Interrelationships
Collaboration
Selects
Applies
Wellness
Positive Interdependence
Leadership
Provides Service to
Others
Teaches Others
Change Agent Skills
Gathering Information
Problem Recognition
Creative Thinking
Decision Making
Systems Analysis
Self-Management
Self-Worth
Global
Awareness
Technology
Effective
Citizenship
Problem
Solving
A combination of Bush and Title III funds have facilitated faculty integration of the
Abilities into classroom projects. Faculty Ability groups have worked on defining each
of the eight abilities and the specific skills related to each. In Spring 2000, each Faculty
Ability Group wrote rubrics to identify five levels of performance for each skill. These
rubric and definitions are published in the “Abilities, Skills, and Levels” document
approved by Curriculum and Faculty Senate in April 2000.
While the upper levels of performance (3-5) are applicable in various majors, the lower
performance levels (1-3) are developed in the General Education courses. To assure that
all students are exposed to all eight abilities, the Curriculum Committee used the Abilities
as a conceptual framework for the General Education program. Earlier documents
identified the relationship between courses in the program and the Foundation Studies
objectives—in fact, all Foundation Studies course syllabi were required to indicate which
Objectives were met by the course. Using these already identified relationships, the
Curriculum Committee aligned courses with the Abilities that had developed from their
related Foundation Studies Objectives. This framework is presented in the 2000-2002
Bulletin (page 30).
Each General Education course syllabus is required to list the Ability, skill, and level met
in the course, and provide a project students may use to demonstrate that ability/skill at
the requisite level. Currently faculty in each course provide the specific rubric or other
evaluation tool to assess student progress. The Curriculum Committee collected syllabi
from all General Education courses in Fall 2000 to review the progress of implementation
and identify weak points in the program. A map of the projects illustrated several
uncovered Abilities/skills, and several divisions made the effort to update syllabi or
develop new projects to meet these needs. A copy of the most recent map of ability
projects in the General Education Program is available in Appendix X.
Students may use the projects completed in their General Education program courses for
their Senior portfolios, if they wish; because these projects demonstrate lower levels, they
are usually replaced with more complex, higher level projects by graduation time. Some
programs are beginning to review projects completed in the General Education program
as part of their entry level assessment in the major. In addition to monitoring the
implementation of the abilities into course projects (which is by no means “complete”—
while all 32 General Education Program courses have submitted syllabi indicating
abilities and related projects, only 12 of the 32 have submitted a project description
template which includes a rubric for assessing the project), the Curriculum Committee
now faces the task of documenting achievement in each Ability area. One source of this
documentation may be the entry level assessment for the major, for the programs that
develop this review process. Another source currently being pursued is a digital “best
works” portfolio kept by each student, which could be accessed under controlled
circumstances by Ability Assessment committees to determine cross-campus progress at
various levels, or among various student year groups.
The General Education Program Faculty
VCSU has made a strong effort to provide quality educational experiences for students in
the General Education program. Part of this effort has been a concern for faculty
credentials, especially for adjunct faculty teaching several sections of a multiple-section
course. During 2000-2001, thirty one faculty taught the courses included in the General
Education program. Five of these faculty were part time (adjunct) teaching one or two
sections of a multi-section course with a common syllabus (English 110, 120, BVED 180,
and HPER 100). In each case, several full time faculty also taught several sections of
each of these courses, and provided resources and other assistance as needed.
Faculty appear to be well prepared to teach the courses they offer in the General
Education program. Fourteen have earned terminal degrees in their fields; twelve have
the MA/MS degree. Of the five remaining, two are completing the last requirements for
the MA, and all are teaching a limited number of classes under the guidance of full time
faculty in their departments.
XII. Program Review
There is little doubt that the VPAA transitions have affected the rhythm and quality of
program reviews. With the exception of accreditations specific to a discipline (National
Association of Schools of Music, Community School for the Arts, and NCATE for
teachers’ education) considerable drift and lack of attention to program review has
occurred. National disciplinary accreditations do serve to keep program review a high
priority. A good example is the accreditation review by NCATE. Specific to the
Education division (and teacher certification specifically), majors offering secondary
education certification, eg. history, Spanish, health education, and sciences, must also
review their programs when NCATE site reviews occur. This has helped VCSU
considerably. So while considerable drift has occurred in those areas not covered by
NASM or NCATE, the institution is far from negligent. Program reviews completed in
1999-2001 are in the NCA resource room for inspection.
While the quality and breadth of the reports are uneven, the potential acquisition of an
updated Administrative Information System and data warehouse for the NDUS will
facilitate the acquisition and storage of program data and improve program reviews. The
current AIS is cumbersome and often does not provide the data categories sought by
faculty in programs. Hand counting and the safekeeping of past printed reports is a
fragile medium to keep a program’s history. Currently, NDUS contracts prevent
individual campuses from procuring any computing/data resources distinct from that
provided by Higher Education Computing Network (the official computing, AIS arm of
NDUS). Program reviews are carried out in compliance with NDUS policy 403.1.2.
To regain focus, the new VPAA required all majors to be reviewed in 1999-2000.
Stand alone minors will be reviewed in 2000-2002. Additionally, a schedule of program
reviews has been published (2000) and will direct program review of majors and minors
through the year 2010. (see addendum: Program Review Schedule to 2010). The Vice
President, in conjunction with APAC, and the faculty have agreed that program
expansions and terminations will be considered only upon completion of a program
review.
The difficulties of conducting and evaluation program reviews without consistent
academic leadership are profound. To add layers of high faculty workload, a changing
political climate (see Chapter 1 remarks by President Chaffee) and unpredictable funding
scenarios, it is not difficult to see how program reviews descend in importance on faculty
agendas. However, this is no excuse. The importance of frequent reviews reflects a
commitment to examine the very products that define this institution. Currently,
sufficient resources and focus have helped the institution regain a handle on our
obligations regarding timelines and procedures for maintaining program quality. The
faculty have acknowledged this drift and have responded proactively to reassert their
responsibility for maintaining program quality through regularly scheduled reviews.
Program review is a serious commitment.
It is noteworthy that two divisions, Business and Information Technology and the
Division of Health and Physical Education conducted major program reviews (1999 and
2000, respectively). These reviews led to significant redesign of the curriculum and
reallocation of resources. HPE used an outside reviewer to facilitate very difficult
discussions regarding the purpose of HPE and the appropriate array of majors and minors
and its alignment with faculty-coaches. Business reexamined course offerings and course
content in the Computer Information Systems (CIS) major. Their review led to dropping
of outdated computer language courses, revision and updating of developing languages
and the addition of new languages within the networking area. Students were involved
and have responded positively to the new look and new schedule of offerings.
This self study was instrumental in this effort. That is, after all the purpose of self
study. Conducting scheduled program review was a weakness through the late 90’s.
Noteworthy, in 2001, Dr. Kathryn Holleque authored the faculty position on measuring
institutional effectiveness. This report, entitled, “ Institutional Effectiveness and
Assessment: Building on a decade of solid practice-Looking at 2001 toward the future”
assures the reader that despite the drift alluded to above, the institution has been
articulating and strengthening assessment efforts in noteworthy ways. This report is
before faculty consideration for inclusion into the policy book. The report is available to
the site review team in the resource room.
XIII. Technology
Considerable attention to the use, deployment and maintenance of instructional
computing occurs. Fiscally, the director of the Information Technology Center (ITC)
manages the budget and personnel and reports to the VPAA. The Director sits on the
President’s Executive Team and is an active participant. His main advisory body is the
Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of divisional representatives, staff
and administrators. TAC remains one of the few cross constituency bodies focusing on
purchasing hardware and software, the development of policy and procedures. Annual
reviews are conducted and linked to University planning. The Director also sits on the
Academic Policy (APAC) the main advisory body to the VPAA.
Instructional technology is also supported and assessed by the Director of Instructional
Technology. Annual reports and assessments are conducted and where appropriate
reports are filed with federal, state and institutional bodies. Training of faculty and
students in the use of multimedia to support and sustain the digital cd portfolio
requirement has been the main focus of this unit. However, the development of hybrid
coursework and the migration of the Tech Ed program to distance, on-line environments
in addition to the creation of online Student Services (funded by a $1.x M Title III grant)
is the main responsibility of this unit. These two directors work closely in providing
effective hardware, software tools plus an active schedule of workshops in support of
ubiquitous computing environments. The Director of Instructional Technology is also
co-leader in the development and delivery of faculty development activities funded by the
Bush Foundation (Minnesota). The effectiveness of our initiatives with regard to
technology is well documented (see TAC strategic planning documents, Title III annual
reviews 1998-2001, Holleque research).
XIV. Assessment of Student Achievement through Office of Student Affairs
The second 5 year Title III grant (1998-2003) awarded to VCSU encompassed two
components. Component one, the migration of the Tech Ed program to the web is
underway and on schedule. The second component funds the design and implementation
of on-line student services. As part of that grant, Student Affairs initiated an assessment
process to identify those services and/or functions that can migrate to the web to serve on
and off-campus students. Personnel departures led to a late start on component two (the
Director of Customized Learning left after 3 months on the job). However, AY 20002001, the Student Affairs staff has been inventorying their assessment efforts currently
underway. These efforts include identifying how this data can be used within units with
the goal of discussing improvements within a web and face-to-face service model. Not
unlike a program review, the development of an assessment mentality to guide
programmatic change is occurring. That is, the staff considers better ways to gathering
and sharing data to examine whether new or improved assessment tools are needed, and
staff-training needs are identified. A significant portion of the data acquisition issues are
regulated by the NDUS system and its limitations. The primitive nature of the NDUS
data network is only now being confronted by the state. All to say that better data
methodologies are needed, but the solution is not in the hands of the end-users (VCSU
campus personnel).
The Student Affairs staff gathers considerable data to complement academic
assessment data. The charts appended to this report identify these efforts. The tables
also convey how such efforts and data link with the university’s mission and goals. The
reader is directed to three reports in particular. The Career Services annual Survey of
Employers & Alumni, the Report to Investors and the CIRP data on student life (UCLA)
address the climate of our educational efforts, the quality of our students and the
satisfaction of employers with our alumni.
Have Glen write up 10 bullets driven by data from Report to Investors or employers
or ???
------Insert here
XV. Student Services: Services to support all admitted students in their opportunity to
succeed
Valley City State University offers a broad range of services to assist students in their
academic, social and personal development. Central to these are new student orientation,
academic advising, counseling, health services, and student activities. Results from the
ACT Student Opinion Poll are used to measure levels of student use and student
satisfaction with services.
NEW STUDENT ORIENTATION
Prospective students are introduced to Valley City State University at high school career
fairs, school visits by enrollment services staff and campus visits. Direct mail, e-mail,
and telephone campaigns are used to provide prospective student and parents with
introductory and admissions information.
Each summer an orientation program is provided for new students and parents. Students
and families may choose from several dates to participate in a program designed to
acquaint them with the university, its faculty, staff and programs. During the summer
program students meet with and academic advisor and register for fall semester classes.
Current VCSU students play a large role in the summer program by serving as group
leader and presenters. Parents attend sessions designed specifically to answer their
questions and give them the information they need. Each summer both parents and
students participating in the program complete evaluation forms from which continual
improvements are made.
New students arrive on campus several days before the start of classes to participate in a
comprehensive orientation program. The three main features of the program are the
“Living to Learn/Learning to Live” class, the Adventure Learning Ropes Course, and
computer training. A unique feature to all three components of the orientation program is
the involvement of currently enrolled students in the preparation, design and delivery of
the programs. Student “mentors” facilitate the Learning to Live Classes and deliver the
instruction in the computer training session.
Living to Learn/Learning to Live Class
“Living to Learn” is a one credit, two semester, extended orientation class designed to
help freshmen students adapt to higher education and become a welcome member of the
VCSU Community. The program has been a part of the freshman experience for many
years and it has gone through a series of developments and improvements. Unique
features of the class include the adventure learning component, a community service
project, and the student mentor concept. The program is coordinated by a faculty member
in the Division of Education and Psychology and a team of students is selected to serve as
mentors in each section. The course is required of all freshmen. Course objectives are
clearly stated in the syllabus and each student is evaluated on quality of work,
participation and attendance. The program undergoes annual assessment by the
organizing team. The expansion of the program to a year-long format in 2000 was
motivated by the desire to provide yearlong contact and follow up with new students.
The transition away from using full-time faculty to a peer mentor model has not been
without criticism. The retention expectations are being met but the development of a
year long program continues to be reviewed. Issues of content, compensation to students,
renewed use of interested faculty, institutional funding are all being examined.
Discussion with the Kathryn Center for Life Long Learning to add Leadership Training
for all new students is under consideration. Student government is considering the
addition of a new fee to fund the Leadership initiative.
The Adventure Learning Ropes Course
The Adventure Learning Ropes Course is a challenging outdoor experiential learning
course consisting of high events and low events. The VCSU Ropes Course is a part of
the Kathryn Center for Life Long Learning and is a state-of-the-art outdoor training
complex. All new freshmen spend one full day at the Ropes Course as a member of their
Living To Learn class section. Purposes of the Ropes Course are to develop trust
between team members, enhance communication skills, promote teamwork, cultivate risk
taking and creative thinking, and to develop bonds with other new students. Trained
facilitators customize the Ropes Course experience to meet the needs of new students.
Computer Training
Students come to VCSU with wide variety of computer skills and experiences. In order
to ensure that all students have the basic skills necessary to be successful in the classroom
and to provide information on the care and use of a notebook computer, all students
participate in several hours of computer training prior to the start of classes. Students
learn how to use the campus network, send e-mail, manage files and become familiar
with the standard suite of software used by all faculty and students. The growing base of
technology knowledge held by entering students has compelled the involved academic
units to consider altering the content of this computer training. Test out procedures have
been implemented with those students demonstrating the course’s required computer
skills.
ACADEMIC ADVISING
The Director of Student Academic Services administers the academic advising program
and reports to the Vice President Student Affairs. The program exists primarily to assist
students in planning and pursuing their degree curricula. Almost all faculty members and
some administrators serve as advisors. Each term registration forms are distributed to
advisors and students are required to meet with their advisor and obtain a signature before
registering for classes. On the ACT Student Opinion Poll, students rated VCSU’s
Academic Advising Service above the national average and the student ranking of
Availability of Advisor is one of the highest satisfaction scores for all campus services.
Students experiencing academic difficulty or those seeking assistance or information on
class schedules, requirements for majors and minors can seek help in the Office of
Student Academic Services. Study Skill Classes and a tutoring program is available to
assist students experiencing academic difficulty. The newly implemented (Fall 2000),
web-based automated enrollment system (ALPHI) has eliminated the advisor signature
requirement for registration. However, despite this, students and advisors continue to
meet prior to registration. While we expected an increase in add-drops as a result of not
seeing advisors, this expectation did not materialize. As noted above, students are very
satisfied with the available of both faculty advisors and Student Academic Services. The
advising process is closely monitored by both Vice Presidents and remains a topic of
faculty discussion.
COUNSELING
Counseling services are designed to assist student in resolving personal, career, academic,
social and medical problems and concerns. Services are provided without cost to the
student on an appointment or walk-in basis. A Licensed Professional Counselor serves as
the University Counselor and is on duty to provide personal counseling, group
counseling, workshops and seminars. In addition to the Licensed Professional Counselor,
two other members of the student affairs staff, the Director of Student Academic
Services, and the Vice President for Student Affairs possess Masters degrees in
Counseling and Guidance and provide counseling services as needed. Students at VCSU
rate Personal Counseling Services higher than the national average for college students
on the ACT Student Opinion Poll
HEALTH SERVICES
A Registered Nurse provides health services to university students for no charge. The
nurses office is open from 9:00 AM to noon Monday through Friday. Services offered
include over the counter medications, first aid supplies, blood pressure checks, allergy
injections, strep testing, HIV testing, and referrals to clinics and hospitals. Family
planning services are also provided in cooperation with an area Family Planning Center.
A portion of the university fee provides funding for salaries and supplies.
STUDENT ACTIVITIES
Student activities occur in a variety of settings and are the result of many group efforts.
The Director of the Student Union and Student Activities serves as the advisor of the
Student Senate Program Board. The Program Board operates on a budget allocated by
the Student Senate through student fees. Program Board is responsible for formulating
and carrying into execution a broad social, recreational, and cultural program of
activities. Programs include dances, entertainers, speakers and special events such as
Homecoming, Sno-Daze and Alcohol Awareness Activities. The athletic department
offers an extensive program of men’s, women’s, and co-ed intramural sports. Musical
groups are sponsored by the Department of Music as part of its curricular offerings. Over
twenty student organization and clubs exist to provide student opportunities for campus
involvement and the development of leadership skills.
XVI.
Usefulness of Assessment Program to Institution and Programs
Considerable national attention has arisen about our student and faculty CD digital portfolios.
They have been featured in state, regional, national and international conferences, trade journals
and news media. This interest has focused the campus on a few central themes: 1) Consensus
across the university on the expected outcomes of the Abilities and Skills 2) The ability of
departments to identify specific course projects which operationalize the Abilities for each
discipline (the evidentiary base) and 3) Where possible, eg. Computer Information Systems, the
Abilities and Skills are integrated with and complement accepted industry standards.
The Assessment Program has renewed a vital discussion about placing the student into a
reflective mode when considering their educational experiences at VCSU. If the world were
solely outcome based, this may not be necessary. However, VCSU has found that examining the
quality of one’s experience is a vital part of the portfolio process. The portfolio has enabled the
faculty to develop in their students a necessary skill clearly not evident in students. One of the
longest held traditions of the Liberal Arts is the reflective self-examination during and upon
completion of a task. The standards movement in K-12 and the federal mindset on outcomes
based education has seen considerable erosion of the reflective skills of students. How is their
voice and POV accounted for in their education? How do they remark upon the quality and
personal experience above and beyond their intellectual growth? The portfolio philosophy will
help restore this value within our own liberal arts traditions.
Completing program reviews in AY 1999-2001across the university made clear the need to
prioritize the importance of student learning when evaluating the effective of the program. The
university finds itself in an opportune moment. There is considerable assessment of traditional
outcome measures. The portfolios will provide an important venue to assess student learning at
the most intimate level (course projects) to a more macro level. That is, all projects in
microeconomics can be aggregated to examine the worthiness of both the project as well as the
student’s effort to complete the project. That was not available to faculty before. The economics
project can also be examined more developmentally within the business major. For example,
does the economics project completed as a sophomore complement and/or set the stage to
effectively address the business major as a junior? Or the human resource major as a junior? The
portfolio, individually and clustered by major, represents an effective means to evaluate the
program’s effectiveness within known ranges.
Coupled with institutional data, the portfolio provides both qualitative and quantitative means
of ascertaining program effectiveness. Well-defined if not well-agreed upon institutional
processes, particularly with Academic Affairs support the institution’s ability to not only map
how data is used but where and to what effect. The reader is directed to a key report, the 20012006 Valley City State University Campus Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Plan.
XVII. Updating the assessment plan
The intertwining of both strategic planning and assessment processes affords the
institution a consistent and regularly occurring cycle of updating both plans. The
strategic plan will continue to undergo annual review and refinement. The IIC in
conjunction with the Executive Team will also provide two dynamic venues by which to
examine available evidence, recommend change and/or affirm the direction of the
university. The cost-benefit model implemented by the Executive Team (December
2000) to create the current strategic plan will also inform budgetary processes. That is,
the budget building process will require units to justify current expenditures and identify
future funding needs in accord with the benchmarks found in the strategic plan. Funds
for requested initiatives not found on the strategic plan will descend in priority if not
entirely ignored or postponed. The initiative must then return to the originating unit and
appear, with argument, on the divisional plans showing its links to the university strategic
plan. In the next year’s planning cycle, that initiative may then find consideration.
The strength of the institution to respond to the political and social vagaries of the
region lies in the consistent linking of unit plans, with institutional planning. Public
scrutiny and consensus building practices ensure community involvement and ownership
of funded programs and university initiatives. Internal politics are minimized though not
eliminated. Our small size and our commitment to use technology to communicate will
continue to enable quick and alert moves as a community.
It is also true that the growing legislative Zeitgeist for institutional performance
measures will not abate. The current set of performance measures will be used in
conjunction with an NDUS peer institution model for future appropriations. This
conjunction of performance models and peer institutions should not be underestimated.
The development of peer institutions by the system office has not been without
controversy. The selection of peer institutions is not an exact science as most state higher
education systems are learning. VCSU’s list contains both private and public liberal arts
campuses coming from states with diverse funding philosophies. It will behoove VCSU
examine it’s own performance relative to these peers with both an alert eye and respect
from afar. Such observations and benchmarking will serve as the general context for
more micro-level analyses found within the institution, eg. program reviews.
XVIII. Summary of VCSU’s Assessment Initiative and Plans for The Future
The decade of the 90’s found VCSU making incredible and strategic strides to remain true to
its mission and reputation as an innovative campus committed to a learner centered philosophy.
The reader is directed to a new assessment plan under development (“2001-2006 Valley City
State University Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Plan”). The report will link our work
within the notion of best practices. Built upon the premise of the student digital portfolios,
institutional and statewide data will define student learning and institutional progress in a more
integrated and cohesive faction. Legislative and institutional timelines are well defined and now
more organized, eg. program review. Considerable work remains.
XIX. Issues to confront in 2001 - 2010.
This self-study has confirmed the success of the decisions made during a decade of considerable
change and tension. Implementing the notebook initiative and network enhancements achieved
through extensive internal re-allocation have set in motion significant processes affecting student
learning and faculty teaching. For example, the evolution of outcome measures (the Abilities and
Skills) led to the adoption of student and faculty portfolios to document effective teaching and
learning. This in term facilitated the development of hybrid coursework where individual
learning could be customized and enhanced through the deployment of web services accessible
anytime anywhere. And while the legislature was slow if not negligent in rewarding such
innovations, the faculty saw necessary time-saving strategies with hybrid courses that resulted in
faculty having far more control over a valued currency: time. These changes informed a new
awareness about program review and program objectives and funding.
The 1992 self-study found much of VCSU’s assessment efforts at an infancy stage. AAHE’s
principles 1,2 were most predominate because many of the changes instituted were in their early
concept phase [Assessment begins with educational values and is most effective when it reflects
an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated and revealed in performance over
time]. Given the changes documented in this report, ten years later there is evidence of not only
principles 1, 2, but 3, see page x for academic divisional mission [programs have clear, explicitly
stated purpose], 4-Abilities and skills, class projects and the student portfolio [“attention to
outcomes but also equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes”], 5 –see page xx
[“assessment is ongoing not episodic”], and 8- linking of program mission, unit mission to VCSU
and NDUS mission and goals [“assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part
of a larger set of conditions that promote change”].
While we are proud to have taken control of our own processes and to a great degree our destiny,
this self study has identified significant assessment issues. Considerable discussion has begun.
These are:

Assessment efforts have no focal point where the data and the assessment process are
integrated. Units collect masses of data tailored to specific need and question.
Institutional data is collected by NDUS HECN office and is driven by political demand
and as such, is not brought within VCSU’s assessment effort. No central location nor
cross unit interaction means that duplication of effort is rampant and data exists in silos
isolated from potential partners. A new office with professional staff will be a necessary
investment.

No central location means expertise and use of data is defined by the user not the need.
Different levels of assessment and data skills will mean unneeded errors, varying
perceptions and an inability to establish base measurements of student learning between
academic units.
 Assessment and decision-making need closer links within Student and Business Affairs.
Little or no assessment of business affairs functions currently occurs. Similarly,
individual units in Student Affairs gather and interpret unit specific data. There is no
venue where the data on the student experience is shared or integrated into a unit wide
improvement plan. An assessment plan for both Student and Business Affairs is needed.
 Templates for judging the quality of portfolios and the linking of portfolio evidence to
learning of divisional skills and abilities is only now beginning. Monitoring and
standardizing of this process is needed.
 Program reviews lack the necessary classroom research attributes to document learning.
Traditional outcome measures (grades, time to degree) are insufficient within a portfoliobased system. Additionally, faculty will need to develop evaluative tools for class
projects to improve the pedagogical link between the project activities and the division’s
Abilities and Skills.
 Considerable effort must be expended to formalize the faculty development program.
Financial and programmatic support are only now in evidence. This includes the
necessary creation of a sabbatical plan and a more formal mentoring program for new
faculty.
An evaluative program to compare the effectiveness of hybrid vs. traditional courses needs
development.