Shared Governance Assessment Committee
November 16, 2012 – Meeting Draft Agenda
2012-2013
Committee:
Barb Keller
Ben Southwell
Colleen Barr
Dan Walker
David Myton
Joe Susi
Katie Kalata
Luanne Webb
Mary Jo Meehan
Mindy Poliski
Susan Ratwik
Guests:
1. Review of Meeting Notes from 10/26 - F12:C2
2. October Assessment Update
a. Interim Report posted with updated University Assessment Plan
http://www.lssu.edu/sharedgovernance/assessment/index.php
b. Final monitoring report to HLC in development
c. Assessment Planning Grid summarizes assessment plans
http://www.lssu.edu/sharedgovernance/assessment/documents/
MASTERAssessmentProgramDegree-listing-F2012.pdf
3. Photo-Project – F12:C3
a. Draft email solicitation
b. Finalize implementation details
i.
ii.
iii.
4. Rubric for Course/Program Assessment Plan Review – F12:C4-6
a. Feedback from deans and school meetings
b. Areas to revise
5. Administrative/Strategic Plan Assessment
a. All of Balanced Scorecard now entered
b. Draft Strategic Plan Report generated from Tracdat
c. Assessment Landscape pending formulation of network storage
6. New resources for building strategic plans
a. http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/documents/StrategicPlanningDiagram-v2.pdf
b. http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/documents/Stepwise-guideAdministrativeUnits.pdf
c. http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/documents/admin-strategic.mp4
7.
8. NEXT Meetings Scheduled: Nov 30, and if needed Dec 7 at 10 AM.
Assessment Committee Meeting
Page - F12:C1
Shared Governance Assessment Committee
October 26, 2012 – Meeting Notes
1. Review of Meeting Notes from 10/05 – approved by unanimous consent
2. Assessment Matrix Survey – committee reviewed progress in faculty
perceptions between fall 2011 and fall 2012. Results posted:
http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/matrix-findings-2012.php
3. Targeted Assessment Projects
a. Reports from 2012: motion Keller/Southwell approved to accept
TAP reports, grant applications and final reports submitted by
Searight and Kirkpatrick, all documents are posted to website:
http://www.lssu.edu/sharedgovernance/assessment/index.php
b. Application deadline extended till Oct 19 – 3 applications received,
Timeline for grant process
i. Marshall Werner: motion Ratwik/Keller for $1000 approved
ii. Russ Searight – motion Poliski/Southwell for $402.40
approved
iii. Dave Finley – application incomplete, no action
2012-2013
Committee:
Barb Keller
Ben Southwell
Colleen Barr
Dan Walker
David Myton
Joe Susi
Katie Kalata
Luanne Webb
Mary Jo Meehan
Mindy Poliski
Susan Ratwik
Guests:
4. Reviewed a range of evaluation tools for course and program assessment.
Committee encouraged re-writing draft to strengthen connection to the
vocabulary used in Tracdat. Committee will review examples for next
meeting, including:
a. Course (F12:A15-16 last week)
b. Course Assessment Plan Evaluation Rubric – F12:B14-15
c. Rubric for Assessing Course Objectives – F12:B1 7
d. Writing Learning Outcome Statements – F12:B18
e. Constructing Outcomes – F12:B19-20
f. ABCD Outcome Writing Model (handout at meeting)
g. Academic Assessment Plan Review– F12:A17-18
h. Suggested Rubric for Evaluating Program Assessment Plans – F12:B21-22
i. Evaluative rubric for Academic Program Assessment Plans – F12:B23-24
j. Non-Academic Assessment Plan Review – F12:A19-20
5. Course/Program Assessment Plans – Review of Data School chairs were asked to submit by
October 25.
6. Remaining Fall 2012 Meetings Scheduled: Nov 16, Nov 30, and if needed Dec 7 at 10 AM.
Assessment Committee Meeting
Page - F12:C2
Assessment Committee Meeting
Page - F12:C3
Considerations related to Academic Assessment – DRAFT; WORKING COPY

The goals of assessment are to provide evidence of student learning/achievement, of program effectiveness, and of
faculty engagement in program review/revision informed by and leading to increased effectiveness and learning.

All courses/programs must be assessed. However, this does not mean that every measure of every course outcome
from every course must be assessed every time a course is taught. Nor does it mean that every program measure
for every program outcome must be measured every year.
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/TFComponentSLOS.htm
o

Grading of students occurs every semester. Course evaluations (student view of the course), and faculty
evaluations (dean’s view of the faculty) occur in a scheduled pattern. Course Assessment (a composite view
of the effectiveness of the course in producing student learning and achievement) defines how we gather
and review information continuously, incorporate the findings into actions regularly, and produces reports
documenting evidence and actions periodically.
Faculty individually, and corporately, must determine the appropriate assessment plans for their courses/programs
while ensuring that institutional assessment data is sufficient to provide “a systematic means for evaluating the data,
making recommendations for change, and then reassessing the impact of the change” HLC report 2011.
http://www.pdx.edu/cae/cae/assessment-step-by-step
o


At the school level, assessment plans must be structured to allow completion of at least one full cycle
(through reassessing the impact) for approximately 50% of all active courses and programs by 2016.
High quality student learning outcomes (SLOs) must be defined for every active course and program.
o Faculty/schools eventually enter all course/program outcomes into Tracdat, irrespective of which are the
current focus of active assessment data collection/reporting, indicating those that are not actively being
assessed.
o In addition to SLOs, units can also define support, administrative or resource goals as appropriate.
High quality means/measures must be used to assess achievement of course and program outcomes - leading to
findings which are useful to improve student learning/achievement, increase program effectiveness, and inform
faculty-led actions.
o Some outcomes may require multiple measures/methods (faculty survey, student survey, direct student
performance, advisory board input, etc).
http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/online_handbooks/program_based_assessment/ch4.php

Courses required in academic programs should be mapped to essential program outcomes where appropriate (see
“Related Courses” on the “Assessment Plan” tab), but not every course outcome will map to the program, and not
every program outcome will necessarily be mapped to or assessed through a course outcome.
http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/howto/mapping.htm

Keep the focus on evidence of student learning, and limit assessment activities to those areas which will give the best
information for faculty/school decisions related to learning, effectiveness and improvement (stay below “critical
mass”).
LSSU Assessment Resource Links: http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/resources.php#outcomes
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment Toolkits: http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/tests.htm
NILOA Resource Library http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/publications.html
Assessment Committee Meeting
Page - F12:C4
Course Assessment Plan Evaluation Rubric – DRAFT; WORKING COPY
____________________________________
Course Student Learning
Outcome (SLO) Statements
For more information see
http://www.lssu.edu/assessment/re
sources.php: Index of Assessment
Resources and specifically this site Writing Student Learning Objectives
All course SLOs should be listed
Course:
Undeveloped
Developing
Proficient
SLOs do not consistently
address Audience, Behavior,
and Condition elements,
weak connection between
learning outcomes and
achievement; minimal
description of specific
knowledge, skills, or abilities
(KSA) that students should
acquire as a result of
completing course.
Some SLOs contain
Audience, Behavior (KSA)
and Condition elements
and/or are based student
achievement. Descriptions
of specific KSAs present for
some but not all outcomes,
some aspects of SMART
outcomes present.
Course outcome statements consistently
reflect Audience, Behavior (KSA) and
Condition elements. Outcome
statements are judged to be appropriate
and reflect measurable KSAs. SLOs are
appropriately SMART. Evidence that
outcomes represent the collaborative
thinking of the program’s faculty and
reflect program goals where appropriate.
Few active SLOs have an
identifiable means of
assessment. Overall the
assessments are not
adequately precise nor
are the assessments
uniformly appropriate
for the SLOs.
Some active SLOs have
assessment means/methods
deemed to be an adequate
measure of the proposed
outcomes, and/or the
proposed assessment plan may
lack essential components
(who, what, where, when). The
means of assessment have yet
to be formally implemented or
there are implementation
flaws.
The majority of active course level SLOs
have an assessment measures that
addresses all essential components
(who, what where, when). Multiple
means of assessment are used for most
outcomes. The assessment instruments
are currently being implemented and are
free of implementation flaws (i.e. they
are precise and appropriate). The means
of assessment represent the
collaborative thinking of the program’s
faculty/staff.
Few active course SLOs
have descriptions of
benchmarks or
appropriate criterion for
success. The level of
acceptable performance
is not given or unclear.
Criteria for success offered for
a majority of the active course
level SLOs, but are lacking in
specificity (e.g., performance
will be greater at post-test).
Acceptable performance
stated but without detail
necessary for review by a
reader unfamiliar with the
assessment.
Well defined criteria for success (e.g.,
there will be a 60% increase in scores
from pre to post test) for all active
course level SLOs. The proposed criteria
for success represent the collaborative
thinking of the program’s faculty/staff.
Language used allows a reader
unfamiliar with the assessment to
understand the expectations for
acceptable performance. Criteria allow
practical assessment of student gains.
Comments:
Means of Course
Assessment
For more information see: Index of
Assessment Resources and
specifically this site - Methods and
Strategies
Only “active” SLO’s are reviewed
Comments:
Criteria/Target/Threshold for
Assessment
Comments:
Course Assessment Findings Summary of Evidence
An executive summary analyzing
the results of assessment activities,
attach evidence, samples of
student work, survey findings, etc.
as a “Related Document” in
Tracdat under “Findings”
No evidence or findings
offered for active SLOs,
jor only a rudimentary
plan for evidence
gathering in courses, or
student data is not
summarized with any
specificity, or does not
match the stated
assessment method.
A sufficient amount of evidence
has been gathered for active
course level SLOs, but the
evidence has yet to be formally
analyzed to give the reader
understanding of student
mastery or obvious trends or
variations in the data.
A formal summary of evidence is
generated and disseminated among all
program faculty/staff for active course
level SLOs. Student performance data
is presented clearly, trends or variations
are summarized. The number or
percentage of students meeting the
expectations is framed to assess
changes in learning over time.
Comments:
Assessment Committee Meeting
Page - F12:C5
Action Plan –
Action Taken, Use
of
Findings/Results
for Planning
Undeveloped
Active SLOs have limited or
no formal summary of
evidence stemming from
assessment, no evidence of
dialogue among faculty/staff
regarding findings or
subsequent action. The use
of assessment data to guide
change is not evident.
Developing
Some evidence that active SLO
assessment was used in dialogue
among faculty/staff to systematically
improve the course. Language does
not clearly indicate how assessment
results were used to improve student
achievement of assessment accuracy,
or results do not inform change to
affect future activities/learning.
Proficient
Evidence is provided that the program has
used assessment results to implement
proposed strategies for student learning,
course effectiveness and/or assessment
accuracy. Language must clearly indicate
where faculty/staff decisions were
influenced by student learning data even
when no operational changes may have
resulted.
There is preliminary,
investigative dialog about
course level SLOs. There is
recognition of existing
practices and statements of
courses objectives. There is
evidence the faculty has
discussed how to define
course level SLOs in their
discipline.
The course has defined SLOs and
established appropriate measures for
two or more active outcomes.
Assessment methods for active
course level SLOs are defined but
may lack refinement or strong
connection to SLOs. Weak evidence
of finding discussed or used to
implement change.
SLOs and means of assessment are in place
for the all active outcomes. Results of
assessment are being used for
improvement and there is evidence of a
dialogue at school level about the results.
Decision-making includes dialogue on the
results of assessment and is purposefully
directed toward improving student
learning. The assessment planning reflects
intentional review of all SLOs over time.
Comments:
Overall Course
Level
Implementation
of SLOs
COURSE:
School Review
Review Date:
Findings:
 Revision Needed – see feedback
 Approved
Assessment Committee Review
 Revision Needed – see feedback
 Approved
Feedback:
Immediate
Actions before
Approval:
Recommendations
for the future:
Reviewers:
DRAFT; WORKING COPY
Assessment Committee Meeting
Page - F12:C6