Jumpstarting Assessment after the Assessment Guru Went Somewhere Else

1
Jump-starting Assessment after the Assessment
Guru Went Somewhere Else

• Dr. Stephen D. Holtrop
• Dr. A. Norris Friesen
• A presentation at the Annual Meeting of the
• Higher Learning Commission
• March 30, 2004

2
1994 The way we were

• Planning
• Assessment
• Assistant to the President
• Data

3
1996

• Departmental plans
• Focus groups
• Changes linked to data
• Assistant to the President left

4
1996-2000The Colleges Assessment Dark Ages?

• Sigh of relief?
• 1998 New academic dean.
• Many departments did not submit annual assessment
  reports.
• 1999 ACT-COMP discontinued.

5
Jump start 2000

• Assistant Dean for Curriculum Development
• Council on Planning and Assessment
• Core Curriculum Review Task Force
• Faculty Workshop
• Meetings with each department
• Assessment Task Force

6
What we did 2000-2004

• Support for annual departmental reports
• Defined assessment synonyms, what its not
• Rubric for departmental annual reports
• Core curriculum review
• Matrices core, institutional, and program
  objectives
• Alumni and faculty surveys
• Self-Study

7
Departmental Assessment Plan Evaluation Rubric
Fall 2002 For use by the Assessment Task Force
Department

Comments
8
Rubric Assessments

• Desired Qualities
• Meaningful
• Appropriate for desired data
• All objectives assessed
• Mix of direct and indirect
• Actually occurring
• Partial Progress
• Some objectives not assessed or under assessed
• Some assessments not providing the type of data
  needed
• Imbalance of indirect and direct
• Planned assessments not actually being used

9
Departmental Objectives Matrix
10
Core Curriculum ReviewLaunched in 2000

• 2001 Alumni Survey
• 2001 Faculty Survey
• 2001 Piloted ACT-CAAP
• 2002 Faculty-completed core matrix
• Already had years of test data

11
Core Curriculum Matrix
12
Core Curriculum ReviewProposals Considered by
Faculty in 2003

• Standing core committee
• Core curriculum director
• Foreign language requirement changes
• Drop Capstone course
• New computer course
• New mission statement for the core
• Core readings

• Approved
• Approved
• Approved
• Not Approved
• Not Approved
• Tabled
• Tabled

13
Institutional Objectives Matrix
14
Surveys and Matrices--Results

• There were no assessment holes
• Alumni and faculty were generally very satisfied
• Departments and the College overall were
  responsive to needs
• The Faculty approved several changes

15
The Value of Self-StudyWe found

• Many departments had kept on assessing.
• Some departments had been using tests.
• Departments had been adding assessments.
• Changes had been based on long-term data.
• The college had continued to collect data.
• The College had replaced the course evaluation
  system.

16
So, did we really need to jump start assessment?

• Assessment was happening all over campus.
• The word Assessment was scary to some.
• The concept needed to be demystified.
• Terminology was fuzzy.
• Almost everyone needed lots of positive examples
  and positive reinforcement.
• Solid evidence of continuous long-range
  assessment of student learning in many ways.

17
Continuing Assessment Goals

• Continue finding additional ways to assess.
• Help departments determine strategies.
• Make assessment more systematic (integrated
  assessment system).
• Continue to work toward an assessment mindset.

18
Contact Info

• www.huntington.edu/education/HLC_PPT.htm
• sholtrop_at_huntington.edu
• nfriesen_at_huntington.edu