Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
I.
Introduction (Could also start with an executive summary of the chapter)
A. What the Reader Will See In this Section (summarize the chapter/section)
1. VCSU continues to ensure its institutional effectiveness (that both educational and other purposes
are fully addressed). Based in the “Levels of Implementation”, the pattern of evidence presented
will support this assertion.
2. VCSU’s academic and student services play a key role in meeting these purposes and as such, are
intimately involved in VCSU’s assessment efforts.
3. Finally, VCSU’s successes and challenges will be evaluated and summarized.
4. An action plan for addressing the challenges and building upon VCSU successes will follow.
B. Setting the Context: Assessment and “A Decade of Transformation”
1. Setting the Context
a. Rotation of VPs during last decade
b. Impact of New state-driven planning initiatives, e.g., Roundtable Report, Cornerstones, etc
c. Accountability to students, parents, public, etc.
2. Assessment and Transformation - administrative commitment to excellent teaching and effective
student learning (Les)
a. Why Assessment – Why is it important (commitment to students, quality instruction, etc)
b. VCSU – rapid change/movement away from scan skills to abilities, a quantum leap
c. Purposes of Assessment at VCSU
d. Assessment - Where VCSU will be 10 years from now
3. Strategic Planning (by Ellen)
The Strategic Planning Process and Assessment
The strategic planning process in use at VCSU for most of the time since the last self-study began with
the appointment of a new president in 1993. Given the new shared administration with Mayville State,
the president asked diverse representative individuals from both campuses to work together on a
strategic plan. They did so during 1993-94, meeting often together and including university-wide
sessions for input and discussion.
The most enduring and focal outcome of these sessions was the identification of four key goals that were
endorsed by both universities:
Maximize learning for a lifetime
Share and develop resources
Provide organizational efficiencies
Document results.
These four statements became the goals of each VCSU strategic plan through the year 2000. The
structure of each strategic plan has been:

Purpose (what the university will be like in six years, the time frame corresponding to that of the
state higher education plan)

Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Current conditions (brief overview of where the university is now relative to the purpose
statement)

Goals (the four listed above, often customized to apply more specifically to the focus needed in
the immediately upcoming year)

Objectives (action items for the current year to implement each of the four goals, each with a
responsible party identified).
The first such strategic plan was adopted in 1994. Then and since, VCSU and Mayville State have
published a single strategic plan. Many of the goals and objectives were the same for both universities,
but institution-specific objectives were also included. At no time has an institution-specific objective
been rejected. The ability to have highly similar strategic plans without compromising institutional
integrity arises from factors such as (a) the similarities of the two universities’ missions, histories, and
circumstances, (b) the focus of each on ensuring the success of universal access to computing, and (c)
the focus of each on ensuring excellence in providing personal attention to each student.
The brevity of VCSU’s strategic plan (one page) means that the plan includes relatively little detail.
Details that would comprise an “action plan” are not included. It is at that level that the two universities’
plans would differ, if spelled out in writing. However, the Executive Team strongly affirms the wisdom
of annual revisions and exceptional brevity for the strategic plan.
Having a brief plan with frequent updates is increasingly common in the business world for many of the
same reasons that apply to us, especially the need to deal proactively with a rapidly changing
environment and the desire to foster significant levels of autonomous creativity among our personnel.
Valley City State University requested and received a mandate for leadership in instructional technology
in the late 1980s, long before many people in higher education saw the opportunities for major
improvements with technology. Given the rapid pace of technological change and the pioneering role
VCSU was playing in instructional applications, it was essential to review what we were learning on a
regular and frequent basis and incorporate that learning into our strategic plan. Furthermore, our high
expectations for change and our small size mitigated against any highly detailed planning—once we had
a shared purpose, a good sense of what we needed to do next, and a strong communication system, we
were well positioned to act. Finally, the fact that we revise the plan annually means that it is constantly
before us. Far from sitting on a shelf gathering dust, the plan is both long enough and short enough to
serve as a useful guide for us.
Also in 1994, the university established the Institutional Improvement Committee (IIC). Broadly
representative, the committee was intended to be a kind of permanent self-study group, overseeing
strategic planning, assessment, and institutional mission. At approximately the same time, the State
Board of Higher Education began a legislatively mandated statewide planning process for higher
education. The law and Board practice have evolved several times during the decade with ever-greater
direct impact on the university’s strategic plan. Early in the 1990s, the university needed only to have a
strategic plan that was reasonably consistent with that of the state. By the end of the 1990s, the
university had to submit annual progress reports showing how it had contributed to the objectives of the
state plan. The university and state plans used a different structure, but their underlying goals and
premises were similar enough to make such a progress report feasible without rewriting the university
plan.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
In the planning process used throughout the 1990s, the strategic plan retained a relatively constant longterm purpose statement. Since 1997, the purpose statement has focused on the development of
customized learning. In order to ensure steady movement toward the purpose statement, two major
processes occurred each and every year. First, the Executive Team and the IIC reviewed progress on the
strategic plan. Each fall, the Executive Team published a progress report for all faculty and staff as part
of the annual Baselines document. The progress report described actions taken with respect to teach of
the objectives for the previous year.
Second, the strategic plan was revised, rolling forward each year to identify the next set of action steps
needed to continue moving toward the purpose statement. Generally speaking, the Executive Team
would propose revisions in the winter and invite the IIC to consider these and propose others during the
spring. That input went to the Executive Team’s summer retreat, through which the plan for the coming
year was prepared. The process included opportunities for divisions, departments, and others to have
input as well, either through their IIC representation or through a more formal solicitation process. The
annual Baselines publication for all faculty and staff also included the revised strategic plan for the
current year.
During the year 2000, significant changes occurred at the state level that impacted VCSU’s strategic
planning in 2000-2001. A statewide group of legislators, educators, and business leaders met frequently
and issued a report in May 2000 called the Roundtable Report. The State Board of Higher Education
adopted the report in July and required each campus to produce a plan by December 2000 through which
it would implement relevant portions of the Roundtable Report.
Once again, the state-level plan was so consistent with the university’s plan that it would have been
possible to make a simple translation from one to the other. However, the Executive Team had
concluded that it was time for broader university engagement with strategic planning to ensure
widespread input and understanding after a number of years with more limited revision processes.
Moreover, it would be helpful if the university’s plan adopted the same structure as the Roundtable
Report.
Unfortunately, the state deadline allowed only one semester to develop the new plan. Given preparations
for both NCATE and NCA visits as well as other major activities, the scope and extent of participation
in strategic planning was not as comprehensive as originally planned. Nevertheless, the Institutional
Improvement Committee ensured that every division and department had several opportunities to
review, discuss, and propose materials for the new plan through several draft stages.
[insert here something about the plans for a strategic planning process into the future—are we going to
continue annual updates and progress reports? Are we going to flesh out the Roundtable plan to be more
inclusive? Etc.]
[Do we need to say more about the “assessment” side of strategic planning? More about the Roundtablebased strategic plan? Other?]
2.
Academic Organizational Structure and Curriculum
A. General Education Program
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
A. Changes in the last 10 years
a. General Education replaces Foundation Studies
b. Abilities and Skills
b.
A.
Current Programs/Degrees – Overview (detail in resource room or in appendix)
Overview of Divisions
Divisions:
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:



Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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.
Say something about how the assessment information goes back to faculty, students, programs, etc.
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, neverending 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.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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 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.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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
Add here a paragraph which describes how the assessment information is used by faculty, students,
program etc.
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.






Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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).
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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
Assessment Activities / Outcomes: Standardized examinations from the American Chemical Society
have been administered to Chemistry classes for the last nine years. The trend shows steady
improvement in student performance. The results are displayed in Table 44.
ACS Test Results, 1992-2000
(HAVE THEM, JUST NEED TO PUT IN)
c.
Fargo and Jamestown Sites – see 1996 NCA Focused Visit Report for Jamestown
d.
Enrollment Info – in Resource Room
e. Addition of Minors, but no program/degree changes since 1992
f. Summer School
g. Instructional Endeavors:
1. VCSU’s Notebook and Technology Initiatives
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Project based learning - Portfolios
2. Viking eLearning Institute
3. Customized Learning Initiative
4. Others?
3.
Student Assessment and VCSU’s Commitment to Quality Learning and Teaching
A. History of VCSU’s Assessment Initiative (Julee)(Some comments, etc by Miriam)
The initial VCSU assessment plan was developed during the 1991-92 academic year in preparation for
the last NCA comprehensive evaluation. The plan had broad faculty and staff involvement and
acceptance and flowed naturally from the institutional purposes (from 96 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.
[Margaret will find Ellen’s charge to the IIC.] The Vice President for Academic Affairs and division
chairs serving on the Academic Policy and Affairs Council 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 prepared for submission to the North
Central Association.
The NCA evaluation team requested submission of an assessment report in June, 1994 summarizing
continuing development of institutional efforts to document student achievement (Why?). 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. The report
was accepted by NCA. [Instructional Innovation Title III grant] 1.4 million dollar cooperative Title III
grant 1998 Title 1.7 million institutional 98-03????—purpose of this last line??
--Look at May 1994 NCA Report – CITL philosophy, etc…provides a nice explanation &
detail – this report should be examined in greater detail! Mention this report.
--Need to discuss the 1996 assessment plan and how the 1992 plan had evolved into the 96
plan (or did it?); also, discuss how the 96 plan (submitted to the NCA for a focused visit)
has not been implemented); now, we have an assessment model that has arisen from the
title III efforts
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
--Note: the 1996 focused visit NCA team reports that a revised VCSU assessment plan was
submitted – so it seems we should be working from this revised plan. This report talks
about evolution of “the total quality philosophy into Continuous Improvement of Teaching
and Learning”; see page 18 of the 1996 Focused Visit Report to NCA (i.e., by 1994-1995,
“fully functioning assessment program”
The receipt of significant grants, namely the FIPSE, Bush, and Title III 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
(Holleque p. 6 “Transforming Higher Education: Excellence within a Culture of Innovation”).
Assessment in 2000 at VCSU – VCSU’s Portfolio Project
Individual faculty members through the academic division are responsible for developing the assessment
process for the majors or program in which they teach. In addition to serving on the Curriculum
Committee and the Program, Planning and Evaluation Committee, faculty members participate in
various components of the assessment process and evaluate assessment results.
[Student Services] The assessment of the Student Services area has always been a part of
VCSU’s assessment approach and continues currently – Include as a separate chapter???
B.
VCSU Abilities – Description and Visual (Julee)(To current)
1. History (see “1995-1996 Revised VCSU Assessment Plan” - Focused Visit (pp. 18 – 19)
C.
Progress Since 1995-1996 VCSU Assessment Plan
VCSU’s Assessment Initiative - Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses Using the Levels of
Implementation: 1991 – 2001 (Julee)
Institutional Culture: a. Collective / Shared Values and b. Mission
D.
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. In 1992 the University mission
statement was as follows:
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 such as the following:
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.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Valley City State University biennial budget requests, 1983-85, 1985-87, 1987-89, 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
At the time of the 1992 Self-Study Report, the University exhibited characteristics of “Level One:
Beginning Implementation of Assessment Programs.” In 1992 the mission statement was wellestablished and approved, but many key members of the university community did not have a clear
understanding of the nature and purpose of assessment. 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 that learning. These indicators are typical of level
one.
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.”
The only substantial new element in the approved mission statement is the special mission focus on
instructional innovation and technology: the shift has been led by the faculty, through committees
and grant-writing efforts. That the faculty have embraced the new focus is demonstrated through
their responses to statements on VCSU’s 1995 Cultural Climate Survey, where a mean score higher
that 3.00 indicated consensus. (p. 11)
In April 1996 the mission statement continued to include strong, clear references to student learning and
the value the institution placed on student learning. At the time of the 1996 Focused Visit, Valley City
State University exhibited most of the characteristics of “Level Two: Making Progress in Implementing
Assessment Programs.” The mission statement was clear, and faculty were developing a better sense of
the purpose of assessment as well as various methods of assessment.
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. The University had just concluded a
lengthy campus discussion regarding the use of notebook computers. The ultimate result of those
discussions was 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
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
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.” (“Baselines” 1999-2000)
The evolution of the mission statement is reflective of the evolution of the University learning
community. The mission changed only as a result of the changes in higher education generally, the
changes in faculty, the changes in student and employer needs, and the changes in the nature of
communication and teaching and learning. The technology initiative helped to drive changes in teaching
and learning as well as how teaching and learning were assessed. Throughout the period 1992-2000
Valley City State University’s Institutional Culture has developed from Level One to Level Two.
Documentation of recent mission statement / assessment efforts can be found in the work of Kathryn
Holleque – student surveys and published research.
Shared Responsibility: a. Faculty b. Administration c. Students
At the time of the 1992 NCA Self-Study Report, a number of members of the university community did
not have a clear understanding of the nature and purposes of assessment. Most academic departments
had made efforts to determine learning objectives for students; however, written reports indicate that the
measurement of those objectives was spotty and inconsistent. Several academic departments had not
identified direct measures of student learning. The administration was beginning to learn about the
assessment, and the students knew little or nothing about assessment. They did not understand the role
or purpose of assessment. All of these characteristics are illustrative of “Level One: Beginning
Implementation of Assessment Programs.”
By the time of the 1996 Focused Visit, the significance 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 exploring and experimenting
with assessment. The efforts were informed by faculty members attending conferences [add specifics]
and by visiting other university campuses. These efforts were funded / supported by the University
administration. In particular, faculty and administrators traveled to Alverno College, a leader in
outcomes assessment. The FIPSE grant and the Title III grant provided the funding necessary for
faculty training, conference attendance, and the development of assessment projects and processes.
Students were not an active part of this process. Although the university assessment efforts were
gaining momentum and broad-based campus support, the efforts were still illustrative of “Level One:
Beginning Implementation of Assessment Programs.”
The contacts with Alverno College and the grants combined to produce a set of campus forums that
encouraged the open discussion of teaching and learning and outcomes. These discussions, referred to
as Learner Centered Education meetings, eventually produced a transformation of the Foundation
Studies Objectives into what are currently the eight Abilities. With the development of the abilities and
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
their related skills, faculty began to embrace the concept of assessment in terms of student learning
outcomes.
In 1997 faculty members began to incorporate the eight abilities into their specific courses. Along with
the abilities, faculty members began to design projects which would allow students 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 Title III grant provided some
funding and incentive for faculty members to engage in these assessment activities. Faculty and
students were included on Abilities committees. Students were also introduced to the Abilities through
their course syllabi and projects.
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]
Institutional Support: a. Resources and b. Structures
Given the nature of higher education funding in the state of North Dakota it is safe to say that sufficient
resources have yet to be allocated in the annual operations budgets. This statement is intended to be
comprehensive from 1992 to the present. In addition, the university is beginning to make provisions for
collecting, interpreting, and using data about student learning.
Valley City State University has a new vice president for academic affairs. This individual brings to the
University a wealth of knowledge and experience in the area of assessment. As a result of his presence
and leadership as well as influential faculty leadership, the structure of the Assessment Program at
VCSU is beginning to take shape. This development is evident through the divisional narratives,
program reviews, and student CD-ROM portfolios. All of these indicators are typical of “Level One:
Beginning Implementation of Assessment Programs.”
Efficacy of Assessment
At the time of the 1992 Self-Study Report Valley City State University was clearly at level one with
respect to “Efficacy of Assessment.” The campus community did not have a widespread understanding
of assessment purposes or procedures. By the time of the 1996 Focused Visit Report, the campus
community was moving closer to the development and implementation of an assessment program, and
some programs were making use of assessment to inform academic decisions. These characteristics are
illustrative of “Level One: Beginning Implementation of Assessment Programs.”
Currently, Valley City State University is engaging in some assessment activities. Faculty members are
more engaged with the development and interpretation of assessment. At this point, more faculty, staff,
and students have some understanding of the purposes, procedures and uses of assessment. Many
academic units are collecting, interpreting, and attempting to use the results gathered from assessing
student learning in general education as well as in the major areas of study. As of yet, most academic
units are unable to draw clear conclusions from the data, but all involved, faculty, administrators, staff,
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
and students are becoming conversant in the language and practice of assessment. These indicators
demonstrate that Valley City State University is partially at “Level One: Beginning Implementation of
Assessment Programs” and partially at “Level Two: Making Progress in Implementing Assessment
Programs.”
E.
The VCSU Assessment Plan – 2001 and Beyond
1. Vision of VCSU’s Current Assessment Initiative: “ Institutional Effectiveness” (Proposed)
a.
Data informed decision-making at all levels throughout the University, from the President to
the faculty and staff members; assessment as essential; we are engaging in assessment because
it helps our students and VCSU first with other purposes as secondary.
2. Mission of the Current VCSU Assessment Initiative (Proposed)
a.
To facilitate and coordinate the meaningful and continuous use of assessment data to improve
learning and teaching, educational support, and administration (institutional effectiveness).
1. Clearly linked to the VCSU mission statement
2. Documentation of how assessment results are used for curriculum improvement and other
campus processes is necessary.
3. VCSU Assessment Initiative Goals (Proposed)
a.
To ensure learning and teaching quality
b.
Enhance program quality
c.
To ensure that student learning outside of the classroom is of the same high quality
4. Guiding Principles of the VCSU Assessment Initiative (Proposed)(Not all-inclusive)
a.
Faculty-driven with strong administrative support
b.
Strong support for faculty (professional development, including assessment)
c.
Student involvement in assessment is essential.
d.
Assess what is most important (Angelo, 1999: “Assessing as If Learning Matters Most”
(http://www.aahe.org/Bulletin/angelomay99.htm)
e.
Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987)
AAHE’s 9 Principles of Good Practice in Assessment
(http://www.aahe.org/assessment/principl.htm) - some refer to 10 principles
(http://www.planning.iupui.edu/aip.html)
f.
Use of multiple measures (qualitative and quantitative)
g.
Reliability and validity of assessment measures must be demonstrated
h.
Others – limited number as appropriate
5..Program Description: Assessment Data Flow (see page 27 of “revised 1995-1995 assessment plan”)
President
Need
Affective-Social
Dimensions (96
Revised Plan))
Instit. Research??
Instit. Assmnt –- where
does this occur? (see 96)
VPAA
?
Fac
Assoc
Fac
Sen
VP-Stud
Serv
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Employer Survey
ACT Opinion Questionnaire
Model & Assmnt. Plan???
Feedback Loops???
96 focused visit report –
incoming freshmen survey??
Periodic surveys??
Aux Units??
1. Jamestown (see
p. 20 96 focused
visit report)
T.E.
Comm
(when
appropriate)
96 Revised Plan says that
assessment will be
coordinated by VPAA &
APAC
(Curriculum &
Assessment)
(96 revised
plan)
NEED: Feedback
Loops – once assmnt
data used for
planning, budgeting,
etc, how are results
communicated to the
campus?
Curriculum
Committee
General
Education SubCommittee
APAC
& VPAA
(Includes CC
Liaison during
Program Reviews)
Divisions
(96 revised
plan)
Fine
Arts
Art
Music
Bus /
CIS
Business
C.A &
SocSci
Commun.Arts
Social Science
Ed/Psy
/Tech
HPE
Education
Psychology
Technology
Math
& Sci
Math
Science
NEED TO DOCUMENT: academic advising, career services, HR/Counseling Moves
See Chapter IV (1995-1996 Focused Visit Report)(p. 24) – in relation to diagram
-Major Questions: Who coordinates campus assessment efforts? How do faculty and administration
share assessment responsibilities?
-APAC = Assessment Committee (and responsibilities of that committee are detailed on page 24)
-Curriculum Committee = Foundation Studies (consistent with model above)
-Program Planning and Evaluation Committee (PPEC) = monitors academic program assessment
(different)
-see page 25 – keep?
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
6.
7.
Integration of Abilities Throughout University (see “VCSU Assessment Chart”)
Institutional Assessment Activities
a.
Involvement of Students – how this occurs
b.
Instruments (in place & possibilities)
1.
Recent Graduate Questionnaire (in place)
2.
Employer Questionnaire (in place)
3.
Alumni Questionnaire
4.
Continuing Student Questionnaire (ACT opinion questionnaire)
5.
Entering Student Questionnaire (e.g., CIRP, locally developed??)
6.
Graduating Student Questionnaire
7.
Faculty and Staff Questionnaires
c.
Assessment Cycle – timing; frequency; FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS AND FACULTY
d.
Other Institutional Assessment Information
1.
Graduate School Acceptance
2.
Graduation Rates
3.
Others
e.
Use of Institutional Assessment Results in Institutional Processes
1.
Curriculum Development
2.
Faculty Professional Development
3.
Strategic Planning (Need Ellen to expound further, especially on the use of assessment
information)
4.
Budgeting
5.
Other – Policy development, decision-making, etc
f.
How Information Rolls Up – From Divisional and General Education to Institution
8.
General Education Assessment – how this occurs, ESP FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS AND FACULTY
a.
Senior CD Portfolio – Portfolio as Exit Requirement;
1.
Portfolio Development Process – from freshman year to graduation;
2.
Overview of Portfolio Evaluation Criteria
3.
Abilities/Skills-Course Map (give sample; full map in resource room)
4.
Storage & Access to Student Portfolio Information
b.
Involvement of Students – how this occurs; how students learn about portfolios
c.
Instruments
1.
Upon Entry - baseline
2.
Completion (e.g., Academic Profile, cBASE, etcA)
d.
Assessment Cycle – timing, frequency
e.
Use of General Education Assessment Results
1.
Curriculum Development
2.
Faculty Professional Development
3.
Strategic Planning (Need Ellen to expound further, especially on the use of assessment
information)
4.
Budgeting
5.
Other – Policy development, decision-making, etc
9.
Assessment of the Academic Major
a.
Involvement of Students – how this occurs
b.
Relationship Between General Education and Academic Major Portfolio Requirements
c.
Assessment Program Overview (matrix) – by program; include assessment cycle information
1.
Include abilities/skills-course mapping
2.
Overall or sampling of portfolio evaluation criteria development process
3.
Storage & Access to Student Portfolio Information
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
4.
Use of Academic Major Program Assessment Results – Program Review as major
vehicle via which program results and information use are communicated
--Sampling of Programs Approach? If so, a complete description of each program’s assessment approach
should be on hand in the resource room and should reflect standard format for ease of use by consultantevaluators:
-Assessment Measures Used
-How are results used to enhance the
program?
-Assessment Cycle
-Evaluation Criteria/Approach
-Responsibilities (more than just the chair)
-Feedback to students
-FEEDBACK TO FACULTY
10.
Relationship Between General Education Program Outcomes and Programmatic Outcomes
a.
Consideration For Program Improvement Purposes (MAJOR SECTION in the 1996 Focused
Visit Evaluation Team Report)
4.
Technology and Effectiveness of Student Learning (instructional effectiveness as secondary to
learning effectiveness)(Terry) (integrate with section III? Separate Section to highlight
importance and primacy of issue and then incorporate as appropriate in Section III)
Effectiveness of Instruction (What we’re doing to enhance student learning.)
I.
Assessing the Effectiveness of Instruction at VCSU
Effectiveness of instruction at VCSU emanates from the educational goals reflected in the mission
of the university and the university’s deployment of the eight abilities.






Valley City State University is a learner centered community.
The University is dedicated to continuing improvement in meeting student needs.
The University is preparing individuals to serve in a changing world.
The University is a leader in the effective use of instructional technologies.
The University provides a quality educational experience in an innovative culture
Student’s comprehension of the eight University Abilities is fundamental to the curriculum.
Goal
Measurements
Valley City State University is a Faculty post office hours
learner centered community.
Course evaluations
Syllabi are readily available to students
The University is dedicated to
Faculty attend and present at local and national conferences.
continuing improvement in
Program reviews are used to strengthen programs. (See Method
meeting student needs.
Below)
Faculty attend campus workshops and trainings
Faculty embraces new and innovative methods of offering courses.
(blackboard course offerings)
The University is preparing
The General Education Block provides a basis for future learning.
individuals to serve in a
Employer surveys
changing world.
CD-ROM Portfolios
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
The University is a leader in the Campus research on Technology use on the campus
effective use of instructional
Faculty focus group research
technologies.1
Technology training are regularly available on the campus
(Results Section IV)
Syllabi Research
The University provides a
Faculty are knowledgeable in their fields (vitas)
quality educational experience Adjunct faculty are competent in their fields (vitas & hiring policies).
in an innovative culture.
Course offerings are based on national standards specific to academic
curriculum.
Student surveys “Learner’s Survey”
Graduate surveys
The campus has obtained Faculty development grants that focus on
current instructional methods. (Bush, PT3, Title III, Title III 98)
Student’s comprehension of the The Abilities are fundamental to the Gen Ed. Experience
eight University Abilities is
All programs are involved in providing project-based learning with the
fundamental to the curriculum.
abilities.
Instructional Effectiveness at the Department/Divisional Level
Instructional effectiveness is monitored primarily at the department/division level. However, the process
by which departments/divisions ensure that instruction is delivered effectively is subjected to periodic
review. (WHAT IS THAT PERIOD?)
 How often?
 Initiated by who?
 Who reviews a committee or the VPAA?
 After review what happens to results, how are they used, where are they recorded?
Recommended Activities
Program Review plan.
Student Assessment of teaching
and learning
Student assessment of courses
in program
Student Assessment plan
(leading to CD-ROM)
Gen Ed. “outcomes” identified
that provide benchmarks for
incoming majors.
CD-ROM: comparison of
entrance and exit materials
Examples of Assessment Methods
See VCSU policy manual, 403.1.2; plan is due in VPAA office Nov. 21.
Program improvement loops should be indicated.
 Flashlight project (see Terry Corwin) allows assessment of specific
aspects or general course evaluation. Items are keyed to Seven
Principles of Good Practice in Undergrad Ed.
 Use current form with additional questions; protect confidentiality of
information about faculty.
 Use external standards (NCATE, state, national organizations)
 Possibly combine with above student assessment.
Plan should show entrance expectations, process of student movement
through program, and expectations at graduation, including portfolio
assessment.
This may be part of Student assessment plan.
Both entrance and exit materials COULD be on the same CD. Program
should compare the two sets of material to evaluate effectiveness of
Defined by Armsey & Dahl (1973) as the “things of learning”, the devices and materials which are used in the process of
learning and teaching
1
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
program.
Map abilities & technology for Could be in tabular (matrix) form.
program
Faculty and peer assessment of
 Use external standards (NCATE, state, national organizations)
courses (external standards)
 Use student evaluation of courses and faculty’s professional judgment.
Faculty development plan to
 Faculty may have a development plan.
stay current in field
Faculty portfolios
 Portfolios are required for promotion and tenure
 Non-tenured and tenured faculty are assessed on a regular basis
Faculty involvement with
 Advising
students to improve learning
 Student club (program) sponsorship
climate.
Senior Portfolio
Can be used a part of exit assessment of students in major.
Best work website
TBA
Graduates exit survey
TBA--we are attempting to coordinate this campus-wide
Alumni Survey
TBA—we are attempting to coordinate this campus-wide
Survey of Employers
TBA—Marcia Walker will coordinate
External review
Coordinate with VPAA—not all programs may use this option.
5.
III.
Research Background on VCSU’s Assessment Model for Teaching & Learning
This brief review of the relationship between technology and education begins with John Dewey. He
believed that technology should serve the process of inquiry. In viewing Dewey as the first great
philosopher of technology, he regarded inquiry as a productive craft, and technology as the tools of
the craft (Dewey, 1938). In more recent times, some educators embraced new technologies such as
audio, video and computer aided instruction. Researchers began to tell us that technology made no
difference in student learning. While researcher continued to tell us that the majority of teachers were
not using, let alone integrating technology into their teaching, one researcher took a different view of
the situation. Clark argued, “The Medium is not the message. Communication media and other
technologies are so flexible that they do not dictate methods of teaching and learning. All the benefits
attributed by previous research to "computers" or "video" could be explained by the teaching methods
they supported. Research should focus on specific teaching-learning methods, not on questions of
media” (Clark, 1989).
This new focus for research, while it has merit, also has its difficulties from the researcher’s
viewpoint. It means integrating technology into the methods of teaching and learning, not laying the
technology over the top and then removing it from a control group. Many factors in the educational
classroom cannot be controlled, nor in most cases would researchers attempt to try. Even the
definition of a classroom has changed with the latest Web technologies. Educators like Ehrmann
(1995) of the American Association of Higher Education suggest we approach the complex problem
in this manner:
1. Technology often enables important changes in curriculum, even when it has no curricular content
itself.
2. What matters most are the educational strategies for using technology, strategies that can influence
the student's total course of study.
3. If such strategies emerge from independent choices made by faculty members and students, the
cumulative effect can be significant and yet still remain invisible.
To assess changes in learning a university must study its educational strategies for using technologies. It is not
possible to measure these strategies in a single course but it must be done across the institution or division
if the evolution of the strategies is to be monitored. (pg. 25)
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Other educators like Gilbert support this perspective and suggest it is necessary to have a density of
technology use before changes in learning can be appropriately measured. Gilbert (1996) states the
following, “To make visible improvements in learning outcomes using technology, use that
technology to enable large-scale changes in the methods and resources of learning. That usually
requires hardware and software that faculty and students use repeatedly, with increasing
sophistication and power. Single pieces of software, used for only a few hours are unlikely to have
much effect on graduates, lives or the cost-effectiveness of education.”
Based on the research and writings of the above authorities on technology and learning, VCSU has
created and implemented a research model.2 The results of which will assist in assessing changes in
teaching and learning on the campus. The major segments of the model are as follows:
1. ACT and high school GPA scores of incoming freshmen are recorded as indicators of overall change
in the student population.3
2. VCSU is a technology rich learning environment, not just because of the laptop environment that
surrounds our students, but previous campus research reveals our faculty have significantly
increased their technology use every year since the initiative began and that 79% now indicate
computer technology is essential to their teaching. Faculty technology use is followed on a
regular basis through a survey, syllabi review and faculty focus groups.2
3. The Senior Portfolio on CD-Rom4 is a digital review of what students have learned while at VCSU.
The portfolios are based on projects completed in courses throughout the curriculum. Each
project is constructed around the University’s Abilities and Skills. The multimedia capabilities
of the computer make it possible for students to demonstrate their understanding of the
Abilities. In 2002 every VCSU graduate will complete a digital portfolio. VCSU is currently
one of only undergraduate institutions in the nation to require digital portfolios of all of its
graduates.
4. Assessment of VCSU’s student perceptions of the learning on the campus has been followed since
1996. A survey created by a faculty member, with constructs based on the Seven Principles of
Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987 has been
administered every year.5
5. Graduate data needed for the outcomes portion of the plan is gathered yearly through the VCSU
Placement Office. Surveys have been recently modified to meet the needs of the plan.2
6. Program assessment is also a key part of the assessment process and is the one of the feedback factors
used in campus wide model. Continued improvement of this process is an important aspect in
understanding the needs of the student and the appropriate inclusion of course learning
objectives.
This assessment model was begun as a method of assessing the changes on the campus created by a
Title III grant. The grant is responsible for the implementation of the Senior Portfolios and will end in
September of 2000. The assessment process was expanded and continues to be modified to better
register changes in teaching and learning across the campus. The model was modified using
suggestions from Ehrmann’s 1997 article How (Not) to Evaluate a Grant-Funded Technology
Project. He states:
Considering a grant-funded project as part of a larger pattern of change implies two quiet different
evaluative tasks – finding out:
1. Is that larger pattern of improvement having a good effect on learning outcomes for graduates? Or are
there other reasons to think that it will, aside from direct evidence (e.g., research in other institutions
that shows that this teaching and learning strategy usually has good outcomes)?
2
A flowchart of the model is included
See attached graphs indicating results of data
4
More information about the portfolios is available on the Website http://www.vcsu.nodak.edu/offices/TitleIII
5
Results of this year’s survey and general trends are available in Appendix A.
3
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
2. If so, is your innovation playing a useful role in the maintenance or growth of that larger change in
strategy? Or, on the other hand, is your innovation neutral or even interfering with that improvement
in overall teaching and learning strategy? (Pg. 5)
A timeline for completing the data gathering for each of the segments in the model in included in this
report. More classroom assessment activities and survey results that furnish faculty with a better
understanding of how the “Seven Principles” are affecting student learning are two areas that need
further study. Continuing to improve the model, facilitate faculty research, capture and analyze data,
and document the results is a major undertaking.
Several projects underway on the campus position the faculty for further improvements in the
assessment process. Two of these projects are promoted by the writings of Gilbert and Ehrmann.
These authors are supporters of the Flashlight Project and the Teaching and Learning with
Technology Roundtable (TLTR). Their writings emphasis the importance of applying the teaching
strategies outlined in Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering &
Gamson, 1987). VCSU has purchase the Flashlight Current Student Inventory and is sending a faculty
member to Flashlight’s upcoming workshop. VCSU also plans to implement a TLTR experience with
its faculty.
IV.
Research on Technology and Effectiveness of Instruction: Documenting Faculty’s Use of
Technology
Quantitative Data – Benchmarking faculty’s use of the available technology is the first step in the
process. Five quantitative indicators and one qualitative indicator were used to determine technology
adoption. The four quantitative indicators in Figure 6 show statistically significant increases in each of
the first four years since 1996. In the fifth year, three of the indicators have slight but not significant
declines.
 Faculty indicated how many of the available technologies they used
in preparation or presentation of their teaching.
# of Tech Uses by Faculty
8
6.33
6
4
7.15
6.63
4.37
3.11
2
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
 Faculty indicated how many of the available technologies they
require students to use in their courses.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
# of Tech Uses by Students
6
4.83
5.71
3.67
4
2
5.22
2.06
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
 Faculty indicated how frequently they used the software available
on their notebook computers and in the Title III multimedia lab.
Frequency of Software Use by Faculty
37.41 36.03
40
24.94 27.19 27.18
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
 Faculty indicated their level of computer use (LCU) based on the
Marcinkiewicz (1993) questionnaire.
Level of Use
8
6
5.81
6.51
6.7
7.3
6.91
4
2
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Figure 6: Four Quantitative Indicators of Faculty Technology Use
The fifth quantitative indicator of technology use was a random sample of 30 courses selected from the
300 to 400 taught on the campus during a one-year period. See Figure 7 for a graphic representation.
In the first set of 30 course syllabi collected for the 1995-96 academic year, only 7 syllabi or 23%
indicated computer technology use by the students or faculty. There were 8 total uses in the thirty
courses. Only one course had more than one use (2) and three of the syllabi had just the instructor’s Email address as a use. (Figure 8)
However, in the second set of 30 syllabi (1996-97), 24 or 80% had at least one indication of
technology use by students or faculty. There were 51 total indications in the second set of syllabi. Of
the single uses only two were simply an E-mail address. Two syllabi had five uses, two had four uses
and thirteen or 43% had more than one. Fifty-seven percent more of the syllabi had at least one
technology indication in the 1997 than in 1996, and there were 43 more total indication in the group
overall, an increase of 84% over the one year period. (Figure 8)
In the third set of 30 syllabi (1997-98), 26 or 86% had at least one indication of technology use by
students or faculty. This is an increase of 6%. There were 49 total indications in the third set of syllabi.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Of the 10 single uses only five were simply an E-mail address. One syllabus had 4 uses, four had 3 uses
and 17 or 57% had more than one. (Figure 8)
In the forth set of 30 syllabi (1999-00), 28 or 93% had at leas on indication of technology use by
students or faculty. This is a 7% increase from the previous sample. There were 72 total indications in
the forth set of syllabi. Only 4 syllabi had only one indication and those were E-mail addresses. Three
syllabi had 5 uses, two had 4 uses and 24 or 80% had more than one. These results of the four samples
show a continued stable and increasing application of technology in VCSU courses since the 1996-97
school year. (Figures 7 & 8) The complete results of technology application are available in the 2000
Summative Title III Report.
100%
Percent of Syllabi with Technology Included
93%
80%
Percent
60%
66%
60%
40%
23%
20%
0%
1995-96
6.
1996-97
1997-98
Year
1999-00
Figure 7: Indicates Yearly Increase in Technology Application in
Random Syllabi Sample
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Number of Syllabi
Technology References from 30 Syllabi
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
14
24
Two or More Uses
1
3
3
1996
7.
16
9
2
1997
4
5
1998
4
4
2000
One Computer Use
(any)
One Use: Email
Address Only
Figure 8: Two Graphs Showing Various Changes in Syllabi
Technology Inclusions
Qualitative Data – Over the past five years three faculty focus groups have been conducted on the
campus. For each a random sample of 5-7 faculty were selected. The focus groups provide a more indepth perspective of the campus culture. Focus groups were organized following the survey research
profiled above and questions were asked to further clarify the research data.
Focus Group 1997 The focus group was conducted in December of 1996 and April of 1997 one
semester following the distribution of notebook computers to students on VCSU campus. Eight faculty
members attended the two one hour focus groups. They represented the divisions/departments of Health
and Physical Education, Education, Mathematics, Business and Communication Arts.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
The responses to the questions were almost totally positive. It would be difficult to identify any type of
overall negative reflection. The negatives were usually expressed as complains about the need for more
technology (networked classrooms or better student computers). Some concerns were over the loss of
the network or lack of it at one location on the campus. Also there was concern that some faculty did not
use computers enough in their teaching. However, the complains were tempered with assumptions that it
would improvement. Even when specifically asked about pressure and negative concerns, the faculty
responded as follows:
 “Administration have an influence on us – can be a positive influence but is a type of pressure.”
 “Influenced -- Yes with no pressure. Students expect us to use computers so the instructor needs
to be ready.”
 “To be innovated and stay innovated…”
The one theme that was repeated overwhelmingly through out the session was student and student
centered. In fact, the terms “student” was repeated fifty times in the transcripts of the focus group
responses. The faculty at VCSU seem to be very concerned about the needs of their students with
reference to technology. Statements such as those that follow were easy to fine in the interview
transcripts:
 “The instructor and the student are learning together while the instructor is the facilitator.”
 “Students have more pride in their work.”
 “There is much more accessibility to information through the Internet. The instructor and the
students are both more comfortable using computers and showing their computer skills.”
There seemed to be a change taking place in the way teaching was happening on the campus. The
faculty seem to want to continue and promote the change.
Focus Group 1998 The focus group was conducted in March of 1998 a year and a half following the
distribution of notebook computers to students on the VCSU campus. Eight faculty attended the one
hour focus group. They represented the divisions/departments of Health and Physical Education,
Education, Mathematics, Business, Science, and Computer Instructional Systems.
The responses to the questions were almost totally positive. Even when asked about concerns
over the changes on the campus most of the concerns were architectural matters such as classroom
design, lighting and difficulties with off campus classrooms. One instructor stated, “The Jamestown
classroom is like going back to cave days.” The major theme of the discussion was students and student
learning. Comments such those below were common:

“The computers helps students get organized”

“Notebooks computers enhance our ability to motivate the students to be better learners.”

“There are increases in creative writing and it is (the computer) a great organizer for writing
papers”
Spring 1998 was the fourth semester since the infusion of notebook computes and other technologies
into the campus environment. Many of the focus group comments reflected the wisdom gained from trial
and error or; they now know more about what works, how well and what doesn’t work. They agreed that
e-mail enhanced communication with students but that it works best for surface types of management
situations. Face to face discussions are still valued. Faculty enjoy increased communication with
colleagues and alumni through e-mail and listservs. Receiving and grading material in digital form does
not work for everyone. Hard copy is still the preferred way for many to grade written papers. Comments
concerning the use of hard copy included: it is easier to write in comments, it takes less time to pick up
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
the paper and read it, hard copy can be read anywhere and enough time is spent on the computer doing
other activities.
A second related theme was the changes in the student population, both in incoming freshmen
and in the current students. Faculty agreed technology made it easier to meet the needs of more students.
After three semesters with technology this is some of the growth and change noted by the faculty:

Students have become less resistant to using technology and group projects are easier to manage.

Hands on training with course specific software has made learning of important concepts easier
and less time is needed for simply learning to use software.

Using the web to enhance learning through simulation sites and immediate access to information
was very important to instruction but control of student computer activity during class was also
important. One faculty reflects that, “In networked classroom you do not know if the student is
taking notes, surfing the web or playing games.”

Technology has increased hands on experiences, decreased lecture time and resulted in less
“spoon feeding” of students.

Member of one department noted there had been no change in their teaching since the infusion of
campus technology except for its distraction in the classroom.
Generally, the faculty seem pleased by what they are accomplishing and they are comfortable
with technology and the changes happening on the campus.
Focus Group 2000
I NEED TO WRITE THIS (Terry)
V.
A framework for Assessing (Academic) Achievement:
A. VCSU faculty apply technology as a tool in their instructional methods.
See Section III & IV of this document.
B. VCSU has identified, implemented and assessed a set of instructional outcomes (Abilities & Skills)
throughout the General Education and Major Curriculums.
See Section VI of this document.
C. Student surveys indicate VCSU faculty apply instructional methods that utilize both AAHE’s Principles
for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and appropriate technology.
The following documents the constructs of the Learner Survey constructed and distributed by Dr. Kathryn
Holleque
The Learner Survey Constructs
In the beginning, the American Psychological Association and Mid-continent Regional Educational
Laboratory identification of learner centered psychological principles was used as a basis for The
Learner Survey constructs. Use of The Seven Principles by Chickering and Gamson, (1987) and
adoption of the Flashlight Project followed.
The “Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” developed by Chickering and
Gamson, 1986; Chickering and Ehrmann, 19966 include:
6
This essay can be found on the world Wide Web at http://www.aahe.org/technolgy/ehrmann,htm
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Interaction between the student and teacher
Student-student interaction
Active learning
Time on task
Rich, rapid feedback
High expectations of the student’s ability to learn
Respect for different talents, way of learning
These seven principles were identified in answer to the question, “What does research indicate about the
conditions that produce good learning?” According to the wider body of research on teaching and
learning upon which Chickering and Gamson drew, when these principles are implemented, learning
outcomes usually improved, too.
Questions in The Learner Survey are coded according to the fourteen factors listed below related to
technology use and created through the Flashlight Project2 (VCSU has purchased the rights to utilize this
material). A notable overlap exists between these factors and the Seven Principles. Thus, if the Seven
Principles and technology use are applied to teaching, the university can track changes through The
Learner Survey.
By grouping the questions by the code and tracking change over time we can look at increases or
decreases in these factors across the university. (We are in the process of double coding with the Seven
Principles, as well.)
A
C
=
=
D
E
=
=
F
G
I
N
=
=
=
=
O
P
S
=
=
=
T
U
X
=
=
=
Code
OP
X
2
Active learning
Collaborative learning (and other forms of student-student
interaction
Using time productively
High expectations for all students regardless of learning
style
Rich and rapid feedback
Engagement in learning
Faculty-student interaction
Cognitive and creative outcomes (including encouraging
creativity)
Accessibility
Positive addiction to technology
Prerequisites for using technology (technical skill
deficiencies)
Time on task
Respect for diversity
Application to “real world” problems/preparation for work
#
4.
5.
Question
Is it important to me to have my own computer to use.
The various technology skills I am developing at this university are essential to my future
URL for the Flashlight Project: http://www.wiche.edu/flshlght/flash.htm
C
I
UN
C
GE
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
DC
NG
UC
X
AG
XA
FA
E
E
E
D
O
P
GN
E
IE
N
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
IC
FA
DN
P
PG
P
F
F
F
U
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
VI.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
employment.
Using a computer increases my communication with other students.
Using a computer increases my communication with faculty.
Having my own computer broadens ways for me to receive and/or present information.
This university fosters cooperation in learning.
Using a computer provides a variety of setting for learning (e.g.. working by myself, forking
with others, working as a member of a team).
Using technology tools makes it easier to work in groups.
Using technology tools increases my critical thinking.
I feel a diminished sense of competition in learning at this institution.
This university provides real-life learning opportunities.
Having my own computer makes it easier to be actively involved in the learning process.
I am involved in projects that promote student choice and responsibility.
I use the Internet often to research topics for courses.
Having my own computer helps me assume personal responsibility for learning.
I am empowered to meet my individual learning needs at this university.
Using a computer makes it easier to meet my learning needs.
Having my own computer saves me time.
It is important to me to have computer access at any time, day or night.
Using a computer is a positive addiction for me.
Using a computer supports my curiosity and intrinsic interest in learning.
Using a computer allows me to experience success in meeting my learning goals.
This university has a supportive, positive learning environment.
Using a computer enables me to integrate and organize knowledge in personally meaningful
ways.
The learning environment at this university is non-threatening.
I use the Internet regularly to find academic information.
Using a computer helps me pursue meaningful goals.
I enjoy taking courses that make use of Internet materials.
Using various technologies enhances my learning experience.
Using a computer during class is valuable to my learning.
I access the Internet daily.
I use my computer daily.
I use e-mail daily.
The learning environment at this university broadens my appreciation for the diversity
among people.
Documenting Ability-Based Student Assessment
The second group of benchmarks was developed from a set of Abilities and Skills unique to VCSU. The
Abilities were established and endorsed by the faculty and the Skills, while originally based on the
SCANS Skills,7 were modified to incorporate the university’s perspective. Both were adopted by the
Faculty Senate in the Spring 2000 and listed in the 2000-2002 Bulletin. A booklet (Abilities – Skills –
Levels) is available.
DIVISIONAL, GENERAL EDUCATION AND THE MONSTER MAPS ARE DOCUMENTATION
NEEDED HERE.
7
Secretary’s (of Labor) commission on acquiring necessary skills
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
VII.
The Institutional Improvement Committee







Spring of 1999 the Institutional Improvement Committee (IIC) was charged by the president Chaffee as
the Steering committee for the 2001 NCA Self Study.
Members of the committee represent each of the six academic divisions, students and the community, as
well as the VPs of Student Affairs, Business Affairs and Academic Affairs.
In the fall of 1999 the committee review the Self Study Plan completed by the Co-coordinators. It was
submitted to NCA in the Fall of 1999.
For organizational purposes, after reviewing the Plan’s Timeline, the committee members self-selected
themselves to chair each of the five criterion committees and a sixth partnership and entities committee.
Two committee members co-chaired each of the committees. Co-chairs were charged with finding other
members for their committee and creating subcommittees where necessary
During Fall Semester, subcommittees examine the GIRs relating to their Criterion or area of study and
created reports that were given to the Criterion co-chairs.
The IIC met regularly throughout the Fall semester to discuss problems and report on the work of the
subcommittees
Spring of 2000 the results of the GIRs committee work was collated and turned in for review by the cocoordinators.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
References
Armsey, J.W., & Dahl, N.C. (1973) An inquiry into the uses of instructional technology. New York:
Ford Foundation Report p. vii
Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education,”
AAHE Bulletin (March).
Clark, R. (1998). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology.
Educational Technology Research and Development 37(1), 57-66.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Ehrmann, S. C., (1995). Asking the right questions: What does research tell us about technology and
higher learning? Change. XXVII: 2 (March/April), pp. 20-27.
Ehrmann, S. C., (1997). How (not) to evaluate a grant-funded technology project. Flashlight Evaluation
Handbook (Washington DC:TLT Group 1997). Website
http://www.tltgroup.org/flashlight/evaluate.html
Gilbert, S. W. (1996). How to think about how to learn. AGB Trusteeship. Special Issue 1996.
A.
Blackboard
***THE NCA Handbook specifically calls for a description of the involvement of the library (p. 46) – Not Sure Where
to Put This
Student Services Assessment Efforts (Consider as A Separate Chapter – May not have enough material
for this strategy – TBD)
Assessment of Student Services
V.
The primary assessment tool used to measure the level of student satisfaction with programs and
services is the American College Testing (ACT) Student Opinion Survey. The ACT Student Opinion
Survey measures levels of satisfaction with 23 different services and 42 different factors of the college
environment. The survey was administered on campus in 1995, 1997 and again in 2000. The survey is
administered at the same time each year to students of all class levels. Local campus results are
compared with national norms and scores are tracked from previous administrations of the survey.
Results are distributed and discussed with all members of the student affairs staff and the campus
Executive Team.
In addition to the ACT Student Opinion Poll, the various service areas and departments use a variety of
assessment techniques to determine the effectiveness of programs and to make continual improvements
in services. The following is a listing of those efforts:
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Summer Orientation – All students and all parents participating in the summer orientation/registration
program complete a questionnaire. Participants are asked to rate each presentation and to give feedback
on the program format.
Kathryn Center Ropes Course – As part of the new student orientation program, all new freshmen
take part in an outdoor adventure learning challenge course. Students are asked each year to evaluate
the experience through the use of formal assessments.
Living to Learn/Learning to Live Class – At the conclusion of the course, students are asked to
evaluate the learning experience and give recommendations for improvement.
Food Service – Food service provider, Sodexho/Marriott, conducts a customer satisfaction survey twice
a year. In addition they also survey the university administration once a year and they use a comment
card/suggestion box system in the cafeteria and in the retail dining area.
Withdrawing Students – Every student that officially withdraws from classes meets with the Director
of Student Academic Services and completes a written exit interview. Students are asked to indicate
reasons for leaving and to provide information on strengths and weakness of the university.
Non-returning Students – The Office of Student Academic Services conducts mail surveys of nonreturning students to determine reasons for leaving and to comply with federal reporting requirements.
Residence Halls - A comprehensive survey of residence hall programs and services is administered
approximately every 2-3 years. The survey was administered in 1999 and again in the spring of 2001.
Students rate and give feedback on everything from building conditions and cleanliness to performance
of residence hall staff.
Substance Abuse – In 1994 VCSU participated in a statewide survey of college student use of alcohol
and drug use. The same survey (Core Alcohol and Drug Survey) was administered again in 1999 to
determine progress made with educational and awareness activities.
Alcohol Violators Class – All students found responsible for a violation of a university alcohol policy
are required to participate in a 4-hour workshop. At the conclusion of the workshop, students are asked
to rate the effectiveness of the workshop and to make recommendations for the campus in area of drug
and alcohol prevention.
Prospective Students/Campus Visitors – Every prospective student that makes a campus visit is
mailed a follow-up Campus Visit Questionnaire. Visitors are asked to evaluate the campus visit
experience and give suggestions for improvement.
Tutoring Program- A review of the tutoring program is done by evaluating the tutoring service
provided and from the viewpoint of the tutor.
Academic Advising – Is evaluated by use of the ACT Student Opinion Poll and a feedback instrument
used in the Living To Learn Classes.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Graduates – The Career Services Office conducts several surveys of graduates. An initial survey is
conducted of all graduates within 6 months of graduation to confirm placement location, type of
employment, salary and benefits. At approximately 9 months after graduation, a survey is conducted of
graduates and employers. Graduates are asked to self assess their preparedness for the job and
employers are asked to rate the level of skill and training of the graduate.
Comment Card System – Comment Cards are place throughout the campus and in all student service
areas. Comment Cards encourage students to give praise, indicate a problem, make a suggestion or raise
a question. Comment Cards may be deposited in any one of three receptacles located on campus. The
Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs responds to all cards received or forwards them on the
appropriate office. A record of all comment cards is kept on file.
Retention Activities for NCA
Valley City State University has several activities to assist with retention. Each major has requirements
laid out on a program sheet that a student can print and keep track of courses taken to the completion of
their degree program. The program sheets are updated with each new bulletin. Faculty advisers have
access to the printed program requirements to assist students with planning. The Office the registrar
provides completed status sheets in the case of students who transfer in course work.
Students are assigned an adviser according the major stipulated upon enrollment. The student makes a
change of Adviser as they progress through their chosen degree requirements if there is a change of
program or area of emphasis. When students change their majors often times a new adviser is chosen.
Throughout the course of a term, Faculty are asked to report student absences (VCSU Policy V517) to
the office of the Director of Student Academic Services for follow-up action which can be a
recommendation to reduce course load, encourage regular attendance to eligible for peer tutoring
services, speak with instructors to clarify a possible option, and or check on the progress of students in
their other classes.
A peer tutoring service funded by the Student Senate is available to students regularly attending classes.
Students who have been excused from classes for documented medical reasons are also eligible to
receive tutoring services in order to catch up on course content and missed assignments.
Students receiving less than a 2.00 grade point average (GPA) for a term receive a letter informing them
they are at risk from the Office of Student Academic Services. Students are requested to make an
appointment with the director and try to come up with a plan to help students succeed.
Students that find themselves on probation are required to enroll in a study skills class that focuses on
learning style, goal setting and time management. The students are restricted to 14 credits per term until
they have earned an overall GPA that indicates they are in good academic standing with the policies of
the institution.
Students that need to withdraw from the university during the term are asked to complete a short survey
with respect to their experience at the university. Students are encouraged to contact the university for
assistance in returning as soon as they are able to pursue their academic study.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Employment Placement
One of the effective means of assessing student achievement is the placement of graduates in
employment that is appropriate to their education. The placement of Valley City State University
graduates has been fairly consistent, with a steady rise. The percent of students placed, by year, for the
preceding 9 years was:
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
80%
88%
88%
89%
97%
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
92%
91%
90%
98%
We consider placed, if they are continuing their education, working in their field of preparation or if
they have selected a career path outside of their education by choice.
The placement pattern of graduates, whether teaching or non-teaching shows a decline in the number of
graduates who stay in ND, at least their first year out of college.
Graduates Securing Employment in North Dakota
1993-2000
Teaching Majors – Total
Placed in North Dakota
% Placed in North Dakota
92-93 93-94
87
52
59%
Non-Teaching Majors – Total 98
Placed in North Dakota
% Placed in North Dakota
81
68
69%
94-95
88
59
67%
95-96
63
45
71%
96-97
113
73
64%
97-98
107
60
56%
98-99
108
53
49%
99-00
99
120
49
66
49% 55%
73
66
81%
79
58
79%
106
51
64%
64
67
63%
95
51
79%
79
55
57%
48
60%
Each year, the most recent graduates of Valley City State University are surveyed twice. During the Fall
Semester, a survey is mailed out containing demographic information, salary and benefit information,
company/school size, job location and services that were used by the graduate in securing help and
employment.
During January, a survey is sent to the recent graduate where they assess their level of competence on
the VCSU Skills and Abilities. In addition, each graduate is asked to respond to questions on the
strength/weakness of their academic program, the most important skills for their current position and
finally, any training they would like to see provided. For the 1999-2000 graduates, they also received a
set of questions directly related to their academic preparation.
A composite of the graduate surveys is prepared and given to the VPAA.
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
During January, a survey is also sent to the employer of each recent graduate asking the employer to
assess the level of competence on the VCSU Skills and Abilities for each graduate they hired. The
employer is also asked to respond to the questions regarding the graduate’s academic strengths and
weakness, the three most important skills for the position and then any training the employer would like
to see VCSU provide. Terry Corwin compiles a report on these employer surveys each year.
Career Services
Valley City State University Career Services maintain resources for students interested in pursuing
graduate and professional study. Testing information on the: GRE, GMAT, OCT, DAT, LSAT, and
others is available, along with catalogues for specific schools. Another resource for students is the on
line information that has been linked off of the Career Services web page. Links are provided to do
graduate school searches, plus other pertinent information.
The data represented here is gathered through the annual survey of graduates that is conducted by the
Career Services Office. The indication, through surveys and personal contacts, is that students/graduates
who are interested in pursuing a graduate school degree right out of college are very successful in their
pursuits.
GRADUATES WHO IMMEDIATELY PURSUED GRADUATE DEGREES
NAME
STUDY
MAJOR
GRADUATE
HPE
Kansas State University,
HRAM
Kinesiology
Minnesota State
1994-95:
Andrew Lindgren
Manhattan, KS
Delaine Irvin
University-Moorhead
Community
Counseling
Jeremy Anderson
Pacific University
Chemistry
College of Optometry,
Forest Grove,
Oregon
Wayne Triebold
Chemistry
1995-96:
Chemistry
NDSU, Fargo, ND –
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Becky Boyle
Robert Norton
April Arlien
Bismarck
Roger Cox
Jason Drake
Chiropractic
Mike Kjelland
Kelly McMonagle
NSU, Aberdeen, SD – Counseling
HRAM
Business Admn.
Biology
Mortuary School
University of Mary,
Chemistry
Biology/Chemistry
Physical Therapy
NDSU, Fargo, ND
Northwestern College of
Biology
Chemistry
Bloomington, MN
UND, Grand Forks, ND
NDSU, Fargo, ND
1996-97:
Tracy Ekeren
Gerald Urlab
Bismarck, ND
Elementary Ed.
HPE
NDSU
University of Mary,
Management
(Hospital Admn.)
Verna Lindvall
– Music
Karla Richards
Counseling
Chad Eastlick
Chiropractic
Music Education
UND, Grand Forks, ND
HRAM
NDSU, Fargo, ND
Community
Biology
Northwestern College of
Scott Hurd
Biology
Jennifer Charboneau
of Law
HRAM
Bloomington, MN
UND, Grand Forks, ND
Physical Therapy
William Mitchell College
St. Paul, MN
1997-98:
Terence Ramsey
Spanish/Social Science
Samantha Carter
Colorado
Music Education
University of Northern
PE
Music
Nova SE University,
Jorge Carbajal
Miami, FL
Graduate School, Tampa, FL
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
MBA
1998-99:
Chris Stuber
Angela Dolleslager
Travis Martin
Brian Tangen
Linda Tran
Pacific Univ.
Business Administration
Chemistry
Chemistry
Biology
Chemistry
UND – Law School
NDSU – Pharmacy
NDSU
NDSU
Optometry School,
Forest
Grove, Oregon
Brad Kappel
College of Chiropractic
Bloomington, MN
Autumn Flatten
Boriana Krasteva
– Moorhead
Danielle Olson
University
Chemistry
Northwestern
Elementary Ed.
Elementary Ed.
NDSU
Minnesota State U.
HPE
Bemidji State
1999 – 2000:
Diana Homan
Moorhead
Elementary Ed.
Minnesota State U. –
Learning
Disabilities
Kristi Rowekamp
- Moorhead
Nathan Stover
Melissa Winning
Julia Devonish
MN
Matt Taylor
Neil Ramsey
Brownsville
Elementary Ed.
Minnesota State U.
Elementary Ed.
HPE
PE
Special Ed.
NDSU – HPE
NDSU – HPE
St. Cloud State,
Social Science
Instructional Technology
NDSU – History
U. of TX –
Criterion Three Outline (Draft: 12/11/00)
The Institution is Accomplishing its Educational and Other Purposes
Educational
Technology
Tami Anderson
Pacific U.
Heather Edgerly
Alysia Tandberg
Fairbanks
Chemistry
Optometry School,
Social Science/History
Music Education
UND
U. of Alaska –
Music
*Luke Trapp
Pre-Professional
Mortuary School
(Luke took 2 yrs. At VCSU)
Oklahoma,
VI.
Usefulness of Assessment Program to Institution and Programs
VII.
How plan is routinely updated – how is the cost-effectiveness ensured? (Required)
VIII.
Summary of VCSU’s Assessment Initiative and Plans for The Future (timeline too)
Criterion Four and Assessment – Page 55