Academic Assessment Task Force Report
August 15, 2013
Lori Escallier, Co-Chair
Keith Sheppard, Co-Chair
Chuck Taber, Co-Chair
Committee Members
Patricia Aceves
Henry Bokuniewicz
Dan Davis
Terry Earley
Agnes He
Imin Kao
Maurice Kernan
Peter Khost
Peter Kuemmel
Joe Lauher
Manny London
Wei-Hsin Lu
Richard Morgan
Marvin O’Neal
Dave Paquette
Charlie Robbins
Paul Schreiber
Christopher Sellers
Lauren Tacke-Cushing
2
PROVOST’S CHARGE
1. Communicates that academic assessment is an expectation for every program and
course.
2. Recognizes those areas in which academic assessment is currently practiced and
identifies academic leaders whose experience and expertise could be helpful in rolling
these practices out across the board.
3. Create an environment in which faculty can be helped to develop measureable learning
outcomes for all programs and propose specific mechanisms for helping them reach
that goal.
4. Develop a timetable by which all programs will be held accountable for having written
learning outcomes and a way to measure them.
5. Ensure that those programs with external accreditation are in fact practicing continuous
academic assessment (and not just in anticipation of an external site visit)
6. Develop institutional academic assessment guidelines that include the documentation
of program learning outcomes, plans for the collection of learning outcome data, and a
format for reporting on an ongoing basis how learning outcome data are used in
decision making.
3
WHAT IS PROGRAM ASSESSMENT?
1. Learning Outcomes/Goals: What do we want students to
learn?
2. Metrics/Data/Evidence: How do we know what they are
learning?
3. Closing the Loop: How can we modify our programs so
students better learn what we want them to learn?
4
SUBCOMMITTEES AND TASKS
1. Collection of Information about Assessment Practices
• Investigate program assessment plans on campus (Survey)
• Collect examples of program assessment plans from other institutions
2. Metrics/Rubrics
• Collect examples of measures and tools used in assessment
• Consider resources needed to support assessment
3. Structure
• Develop a campus-wide structural plan for assessment at SBU
• Identify what programs require assessment
4. Communication
• Develop a simple guide to assessment
• Consider how assessment requirements should be communicated
5
RECOMMENDATION 1
Establish a permanent Office of Academic Assessment
at the university
Stony Brook University must establish an infrastructure of personnel and
resources to support a culture of assessment campus-wide. Key
personnel must be in place as part of the permanent administrative
structure of the university. A Director and Assistant Director of Academic
Assessment with responsibility for the oversight of all assessment
activities across campus should be appointed as soon as possible.
Additionally, to support the coordination of data and information we
recommend that a data analyst be hired.
6
RECOMMENDATION 2
Appoint Assessment Coordinators in each academic
unit
The successful introduction of a more formalized assessment initiative
requires skilled leadership, the development of open and clear
communication pathways and the identification and input of a team of
appropriately qualified faculty. The goal is to develop a university-wide
culture, which recognizes that the mission of providing comprehensive,
high quality education is promoted by the incorporation of rigorous
assessment practices into academic programs. A key factor in this
development is the appointment of personnel to act as assessment
coordinators.
7
RECOMMENDATION 3
Establish a university-wide committee for the purpose of
ongoing communication and policymaking regarding
assessment
There is a need for ongoing communication regarding assessment
activities campus- wide. This committee will provide a forum for the
exchange of information, ideas and practices of academic assessment.
This committee should serve in an advisory capacity to the Provost and
should formally incorporate representation from the Standing
Committees of the University Senate that deal with undergraduate and
graduate education (Undergraduate and Graduate Councils).
8
RECOMMENDATIONS 4, 5, AND 6
Establish a university-wide assessment recognition
program
Conduct a survey of current assessment practices at
SBU
When the assessment policy is announced to the
university community, it must be simple, flexible, and
under the control of each program’s faculty
9
RECOMMENDATION 7
Be very clear on a timeline of activities and provide the
necessary resources for timely progression.
It is very important that the administration signal the importance of
academic assessment by committing the necessary resources to support
the activities as described in earlier recommendations. We must strive to
have these resources in place in sync with the timeline expected for
program faculty to follow in creating their plans.
10
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Survey Instrument for current SBU assessment
2. Collection of examples of assessment plans, including
detailed evaluation of AAU assessment plans
3. An Introduction and Guide to Outcomes-Based
Assessment
4. Proposed Timeline
11
TIMELINE: MARCH 2013 TO OCTOBER 2013
Provost forms
the Task Force
on Academic
Assessment
Submit sub-group
reports
Submit Final
Report
Provost’s Committee
Meeting
Prepare and
submit Task Force
Report to Provost
Provost adopts
Academic
Assessment Plan
and meets with
Deans
Begin development of
Program Assessment
Plans
Begin to identify
Assessment
Coordinators
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
Develop faculty
on-line resources
June 2013
Formation of
sub-groups for
academic
assessment
Work on final
report and
supporting
materials
Define tasks for
sub-groups
Appoint
Assessment
Coordinators
Prepare subgroup reports
Conduct faculty
development
workshops
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
Assessment Coordinator
within each unit develops a
meeting Schedule
Convene Provost Joint
Committee on Assessment
Begin development of
Program Learning
Outcomes
Begin development of
Program Assessment Plan
Conduct faculty workshops
12
October 2013
Provost’s Committee
Meeting
October 15, submit
Program Learning
Outcomes
Begin development of
Student Learning
Outcomes for courses.
Conduct faculty workshops
TIMELINE: NOVEMBER 2013 TO JUNE 2014
Provost’s
Committee Meeting
Development of
Student Learning
Outcomes
Conduct faculty
development
workshop
November 2013
January 15, 2014: Submit
Student Learning Objectives for
all courses, spring 2013, fall
2013, and spring 2014 linked
with program outcomes.
Document & submit evidence
and analysis of at least one
program
Conduct faculty development
workshop
December 2013
Continue committee
work and development
of Student Learning
Outcomes
Provost’s Committee
Meeting
Conduct faculty
development workshop
January 2014
February 2014
Stony Brook
University
Middle States
re-accreditation
Spring 2014 Semester:
Document evidence of
quality improvements
based on data analysis
Provost’s
Committee
Meeting
Provost’s Committee
Meeting
March 2014
Provost’s
Committee
Meeting
April 2014
Provost’s
Committee
Meeting
Conduct faculty
development
workshop
13
May 2014
June 2014
Provost’s
Committee
Meeting