University of Akron ABJ 31703

1
Learning and Success in the Major Academic
Program Assessment at The University of
Akron Dr. Paulette Popovich, Chair The
University of Akron Student Assessment Task
Force Student Success in Majors and Programs
Panel Student Success Summit Columbus, Ohio
June 14, 2007
2
History of Academic Program Assessment at The
University of Akron

• Student Assessment Task Force (SATF)
  established
• in early 1990s
• Large and inclusive body proactive
  communication
• liaison
• Annual departmental assessment reports
  collected
• 2003-04 pivotal year
• New provost appointed
• HLC accreditation site visit
• 2004-05 SATF reconfigured

3
2003-04 Provost Initiatives include

• Complete development and implementation of
  First-Year Experience to enhance student success
• Support the Institute for Teaching and Learnings
  (ITL) work on faculty development, Scholarship of
  Teaching and Learning (SoTAL), and assessment of
  student learning
• Strengthen program development and instruction
  that support student success
• Institute campus-wide program review

4
2004-05 Establishing an Academic Program
Assessment Plan Reporting System

• SATFs role is supportivea resource for faculty
• Departmental performance measured by engagement
  of the process not evaluation of the results
• Department assessment representatives appointed
• Systematic reporting cycle and template
  established
• Goals
• Create a culture of evidence of student learning
  and accountability part of larger University
  continuous improvement focus
• Encourage collaboration and conversation about
  teaching, learning and assessment
• Encourage scholarship
• Go public

5
2004-05 Establishing an Academic Program
Assessment Plan Reporting System (cont)

• Two reporting points in the annual cycle
• SATF feedback at each point
• The 2004-05 report template

6
Academic Program Assessment Plan Fall 2005
SubmissionProgram DepartmentDepartment
ChairDepartment Assessment RepresentativeCol
lege
7
Academic Program Assessment Plan Spring
2006 SubmissionProgram DepartmentDepartment
ChairDepartment Assessment RepresentativeCol
lege
8
Academic Program Assessment Plan Fall
SubmissionProgram DepartmentDepartment
ChairDepartment Assessment RepresentativeCol
lege
Example
9
Academic Program Assessment Plan Spring
SubmissionProgram DepartmentDepartment
ChairDepartment Assessment RepresentativeCol
lege
Example
10
2004-05 Establishing a Reporting System Fall
Review Cycle(reviews completed by SATF)
11
2004-05 Establishing a Reporting System Spring
Review Cycle
SATF Academic Program Assessment Plan Review and
Comments 2005
12
Academic Program Assessment Process Success in
2004-05

• 100 plans submitted and reviewed in Fall 2004
• 60 plans with data/actions submitted and
  reviewed in Spring 2005
• Workshops offered throughout the year to address
  program assessment and reporting

13
Evaluation of the Reporting System Process

• Pros
• Encouraged a more focused Task Force with
  proactive communication role
• Established a cycle with consistent and simple
  electronic report
• Engaged the faculty across campus
• Provided feedback to departments twice/year

14
Evaluation of the Reporting System Process (cont)

• Cons
• Electronic (limited - Word document)
• Difficult to systematically track and monitor
  submissions (manual process)
• Form itself allowed for inconsistency
• Could not be easily shared
• Could not be easily archived/retrieved
• Impossible to query or analyze in the aggregate
• Feedback forms were rudimentary (delivered in
  hard copy)
• Difficult to track and archive plans
• Forms did not allow for consistent feedback among
  different reviewers

15
2005-07 Refining the Cycle Creating an
Electronic Library/Archive

• Process Improvements
• Web-based
• Data-based format
• Public within University community (password
  access)
• Systematic process for reporting retained
• Consistent reporting template
• Ability to query
• Archive/library function
• User-friendly submission and tracking
• Simple feedback submission and tracking (plans
  and feedback connected in electronic archive)

16
Web-based Academic Program Plan Submission Process
17
Academic Program Assessment PlanElectronic
Feedback

• Web-based
• Streamlined
• Quick feedback to departments
• Plan and feedback linked and archived

18
Academic Program Assessment Plan Electronic
Feedback
19
What We Have Learned

• Student success in the major can and should be
  measured in a variety of ways including
• direct measures, such as professional
  accreditation standards, certification tests,
  demonstrations of skills and knowledge at various
  points in the curriculum
• Indirect measures, such as graduate/alumni
  surveys, employer surveys
• Consistent and systematic reporting provides for
  the development of a common conceptual framework
  and common vocabularyabout assessment
• Participation in the review and feedback process
  is a rich learning experience

20
What We Have Learned (cont)

• Faculty are beginning to see commonalities in
  assessment practice among majors, providing for
  more opportunities for interdisciplinary
  conversation
• Students are interested in and want to be a part
  of the assessment process
• Faculty engaged in meaningful academic program
  assessment activities value it as a formative
  experience for their curriculum and their own
  classroom teaching

21
Future Goals

• Continue to expand public access
• Expand review and feedback process to include
  more participants
• Engage in conversations regarding TAGS and
  academic program assessment
• Promote best practices in assessment through
  feedback, faculty development opportunities,
  campus conversations, etc.
• Include additional University departments in
  assessment of student learning such as FYE
  initiatives, Service learning and
  extra-curriculars, Student Services/Advising, and
  Career Advantage
• Continue and evolve the culture of evidence of
  student learning and accountability