Strategic Planning Work Group 1.1.1
Final Report (draft 1)
January 2, 2015
Overview
In the Winter of 2014, Melody Madlem, Director of Strategic Planning, charged a
series of small work groups with researching and recommending ideas to further
the accomplishment of the elements of the CWU Strategic Plan approved by
President Gaudino in April of 2014. The group focusing on Objective 1.1.1 was
chaired by Bret Smith, associate professor in Music also serving as Assessment
Coordinator. The other members of the group were Lori Braunstein, Director of
Academic Planning and professor in Information Technology and Administrative
Mangement; George Drake, professor and chair of the English department;
Martha Kurtz, Associate Dean in the College of the Sciences and professor in
Science Education; and Vicki Sannuto, Director of Career Services.
This group met in January, May, June, September, and December of 2014 and
communicated via email as necessary. This report contains our findings and
recommendations.
Core Theme 1 of the Strategic Plan contains two objectives, each of which
comprises several outcomes with specific indicators. Our charge was to address
Outcome 1.1.1 and its indicators. They read:
Objective 1.1: Enhance student success by continually improving the
curricular, co-curricular, and extracurricular programs.
Outcome 1.1.1: Students will achieve programmatic learning
outcomes.
Indicator 1.1.1.1: Student performance data and outcomes
achievement as described in annual program assessment
reports.
Goals:

100% Annual Academic Program Review
Core Theme 1.1.1 Final Report (draft 1)--2


100% reported utilizing programmatic outcome reports to strengthen
programs
25% General Education Course Review
Indicator 1.1.1.2: Post-graduation job and graduate school
placement rates.
Goals:


Baseline Job Placement
Baseline Graduate/Professional School Acceptance
Recommendations
Indicator 1.1.1.1 addresses programmatic student learning outcomes--the
specific statements of what students should know and be able to do as a result of
completing a particular degree program. This also relates to general education
outcomes, and relates to CWU's processes of curriculum approval, program
review, and various accreditation requirements.
Oversight of program-level outcome development, assessment plans, and annual
assessment reporting currently rests with the Associate Provost, assisted by the
faculty Assessment Coordinator and the Director of Institutional Assessment.
They collect documentation, provide feedback, and maintain the website that
houses these elements. Oversight of the general education program rests with
the Faculty Senate General Education Committee.
The goal of 100% program reporting of assessment of student learning has been
met for the last two years. The opportunity now exists to improve the quality of
the assessment plans and assist with data gathering and interpretation at the
department level. Faculty tend to be disconnected from this process and chairs
feel that the time spent in reporting does not result in actions or feedback they
can use to assist their work.
Recommendation 1: University Assessment Committee
We recommend re-establishing a university-level assessment
committee whose charge will be to engage in ongoing oversight of
student learning outcomes assessment and program review. In
consultation with the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, this group
could advise on program and course proposals and changes from a
perspective of quality of outcomes and assessment processes. They
could extend this advisory capacity to departments directly by working with
area assessment coordinators (as appropriate), department chairs, and
faculty through meetings and sustained interaction.
Core Theme 1.1.1 Final Report (draft 1)--3
Key considerations in forming this committee will be location, size,
representation, and costs. A possible configuration would house the
committee with the Associate Provost, reporting to the Provost. A
committee of no more than 10 people would allow flexibility. Chaired by
the Assessment Coordinator, this committee could consist of: 4 faculty
representatives (one for each academic college) selected by and serving
terms established by the Faculty Senate, a representative from ADCO, the
Director of Institutional Assessment, and a representative from the
Associate Dean's Council. The chair or representative of the Faculty
Senate General Education committee would also be a possibility.
The primary resource/cost considerations will be release time for faculty
service workload and staff support for scheduling, data gathering, recordkeeping, and website maintenance.
Related Activities
In addition to the existing activities of annual student learning outcome
assessment reporting and program review, the committee could consider
several initiatives. The following are some resources and examples.
Kansas State University: KSU maintains College Assessment Review
Committees--essentially college-level committees that report to the
university-level one. They conduct an annual assessment showcase
highlighting best practice and awarding framed certificate from Provost
and Senior Vice President. The campus hosts an annual one-day Institute
for Student Learning Assessment for higher education in the state. They
offer an opportunity for faculty to become an Academy for StudentCentered Learning scholar by attending two sessions at their annual
academy. They provide an online Assessment Toolkit with links and howtos to help faculty and chairs navigate the assessment process.
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment: This
organization was founded in 2008 and is housed at the University of
Illinois and Indiana University, with involvement from the Lumina and
Teagle Foundations. They published a Transparency Framework to guide
developing institutional websites and addressing different components of
the assessment cycle. The committee should review and consider all of
the resources that this organization provides.
High-Impact Practices: We believe that in the process of reviewing
current program outcomes and assessment plans, this committee could
identify common outcomes and relate them to current work in relation to
Core Theme 1.1.1 Final Report (draft 1)--4
high-impact instructional practices as described by George Kuh and the
American Association of Colleges and Universities (see
https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips).
Faculty Involvement: In January 2014, NILOA published the report
Knowing What Students Know and Can Do: The Current State of Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment in U.S. Colleges and Universities,
available at http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org . First of the five
implications they drew from the survey was "more faculty involvement is
essential." The committee should explore and implement a variety of
initiatives to sustain and increase faculty engagement with student
learning outcomes and assessment at CWU.
Recommendation 2: Develop General Education Assessment Plan
The general education program is currently in a middle ground between
“old” and “new” programs, with the Faculty Senate General Education
Committee working to review courses for the program implementation in
Fall 2016. The faculty Assessment Coordinator has been working with the
committee in examining assessment strategies that could lend themselves
to meaningful and efficient program review on an ongoing basis. One
promising approach is to employ the assessment capabilities of Canvas
and develop procedures that would allow outcomes assessment data to
supplement the current early alert process in basic skills classes, as well
as monitoring outcome achievement over time and at the end of the
program.
While general education assessment would relate to the charge of the
proposed University Assessment Committee, we feel that the Senate's
committee, or a subcommittee, is the best body to develop and provide
ongoing oversight of the process.
The main costs associated with this would be to ensure that workload
allocations for committee service are commensurate with the actual duties
required of committee members, and to maintain staff support. The
development and ongoing implementation of a Canvas-based system may
require additional time and workload for Institutional Assessment,
Organizational Effectiveness or other areas.
Core Theme 1.1.1 Final Report (draft 1)--5
Recommendation 3: Support for Instructional Practice and
Professional Development
Professional development focusing on "best practice" in instruction and
assessment is likely a constant priority for any university. Are we utilizing
our internal resources well?
We recommend a review of current and potential initiatives in this area.
Are we seeking and utilizing the expertise of our curriculum and
assessment faculty within the CTL (as well as their Professional Education
Advisory Board), and teaching-oriented faculty within the departments?
Perhaps it would be a wise use of money to offer departments a chance to
bring in a colleague from another university (or other outside expert) who
is known for their excellence in the classroom to review, consult, and
present ideas for instructional improvement on a regular basis. This would
be a different climate than the external visitors that are part of
accreditation and program reviews. These consultations could also be
conducted using web-conferencing to decrease costs.
This review and development seems best suited for the faculty
Professional Development coordinator, and may indeed be currently
underway. We encourage this to be a priority, with appropriate funding for
workload.
Indicator 1.1.1.2 addresses post-graduation job and graduate school placement
rates. We feel that these are indeed valuable measures of program
effectiveness and student learning. However, we recommend a broader view.
The 2014 Gallup-Purdue Index Report entitled Great Jobs, Great Lives (available
at http://products.gallup.com/168857/gallup-purdue-index-inaugural-nationalreport.aspx) provides survey data from over 30,000 college graduates, and
identifies several correlations between student engagement on campus, later
career engagement, and broader personal well-being.
Recommendation 4: Develop a Comprehensive Approach to PostGraduation Data
We currently gather some baseline data from the senior survey
(employment upon graduation, seeking employment on graduation,
military service upon graduation). We feel that a comprehensive approach
would involve Organizational Effectiveness and the data warehouse,
Career Services, Alumni Relations, and individual academic departments
and programs. This would allow us to connect program-level strategies
(recruitment, advising, internships and field work) with post-graduation
Core Theme 1.1.1 Final Report (draft 1)--6
outcomes, satisfaction rates, alumni relations, and development. If, as the
Gallup-Purdue data suggest, faculty mentoring and internships are
correlated with later success, we could target development funds to
improve these areas.
The National Association of Colleges and Employers is currently
emphasizing the importance of first-destination/post-graduation surveys,
and has many resources on their website:
http://naceweb.org/knowledge/assessment.aspx. They have developed
standards for such surveys, and member institutions are currently
engaged in the First-Destination Survey Initiative aimed to allow "the
opportunity to collect and report graduate outcomes data using the same
definitions, time frames, and parameters." If CWU is not involved in this
project, we recommend that we investigate the opportunity.
We feel that prior experience and evidence from the literature suggest that
the best data are the result of department or program-level outreach.
Similar to the Student Evaluation of Instruction, we could imagine a
process by which a survey is developed and administered centrally with
an opportunity to add program-specific questions. Contact with graduates
would be initiated and tracked through the program. As with prior
recommendations, the resources would primarily be those related to time
and workload for the development and administration of surveys, data
management, and the compilation, interpretation, and dissemination of
information.
Related Activities
We recommend a similar interest in the impact of our graduate
programs. How many graduate degree recipients from CWU go on to
doctoral study? Do our degrees lead to higher salaries, promotion within
government/educational/industry positions, or other forms of leadership?
How many influential people within the private and public sectors are
connected with CWU by virtue of their graduate degrees? At present, we
are not aware of any existing processes for acquiring this information.
We believe that by working with various elements of the alumni and
development offices on campus, we could develop a strategy for
targeting specific industries or sectors (through professional
organizations, conferences, etc.) to establish a dialogue or a “presence”
using alumni we can identify as an entry point.
Core Theme 1.1.1 Final Report (draft 1)--7
We can look at a specific example from the CWU Department of Music.
Music faculty have consciously maintained high visibility within the
Washington Music Educators Association and the National Association for
Music Education through performances, offering sessions at annual
conferences, and serving on organization boards at the state, regional,
and national levels. The department has traditionally funded conference
registration for faculty to attend the state conference. CWU alumni
maintain a vibrant network, and the CWU-hosted reception is always at
least twice the size of any other university (good music and food help,
too). Interest in the new summer music education masters degree
program regionally (and perhaps nationally/internationally) is strong in part
because of this “branding” and visibility sustained over many years by
generations of department faculty. Our alumni are very important in
bringing their students to our campus for contests, festivals, and informal
visits, as well as hosting our student teachers and recommending CWU to
their students. While this is recognized and appreciated at the College
and University level, it is mainly a “grass-roots” value that is sustained by
the faculty as professionals and educators.
Are there opportunities for other programs to extend similar efforts, and
what are ways that the University can stimulate, promote, sustain, and
celebrate these? Are we really listening to our alumni and what they
valued most (or would like to see changed) about our programs?
Conclusion
It is difficult to focus on isolated areas of the CWU Strategic Plan without
considering the interrelationships between its elements. Outcome 1.1.1 places
its emphasis on gathering, interpreting, and acting on useful data to improve
educational outcomes. In the framework of assessment in general, we can focus
on the validity and reliability (quality) of measures, and the processes and
methods chosen to analyze and disseminate information to decision-makers for
action.
Ideally, we will be able to identify particular aspects of the CWU experience--be it
from particular activities in a class, to an internship, to facilities provided--and
connect them with student learning and post-graduation success. With welldesigned assessments, commitment to the process for the long term, and
efficient procedures, we believe CWU can aspire to being a model institution in
this facet of university operations.