The Catholic
University of America
Student
Learning Assessment Plan
March 26,
2009
Introduction
This document describes the
Student Learning Assessment Plan of The Catholic University of America
(CUA). This plan does not encompass assessment of all University goals,
rather those involving the assessment of student learning outcomes from
academic experiences and campus life as it complements student learning.
This document traces unique ingredients of today’s plan to CUA’s
institutional history, mission, goals and strategic plan; describes
the conceptual and regional accreditation frameworks that are also critical
to the shape it takes and sets out the plan’s framework along with
a timetable for ongoing enhancements.
Assessment in Context
At its most basic, assessment
in higher education is a process that helps universities and colleges
ascertain whether they are fulfilling their missions and achieving their
goals – whether they are making a difference in students’ lives.
University wide, the values and practices that characterize CUA’s
assessment of student learning has been woven into the fabric of our
institutional culture over time. There is a growing appreciation of
the roles that clarifying goals, analyzing data and improving assessment
practices can play in enhancing student learning.
First and foremost, CUA’s
student learning outcomes are grounded in the University’s mission
and shaped by our history.
Mission of the
University
As the national
university of the Catholic Church in the United States, founded and
sponsored by the bishops of the country with the approval of the Holy
See, CUA is committed to being a comprehensive Catholic and American
institution of higher learning, faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ
as handed on by the Church. Dedicated to advancing the dialogue between
faith and reason, CUA seeks to discover and impart the truth through
excellence in teaching and research, all in service to the Church, the
nation and the world.1
Early History
of the University
In 1887, the Roman Catholic
Bishops of the United States founded The Catholic University of America
(CUA) with the approval of Pope Leo XIII. As the national university
of the Catholic Church in the United States, it is unique among Catholic
institutions of higher learning in the US because it is the only one
to possess a papal or Vatican charter, sponsorship of the US Catholic
hierarchy and the authority to grant ecclesiastical degrees. (In addition
to granting civil degrees, the Schools of Philosophy and Theology and
Religious Studies award several different ecclesiastical degrees by
virtue of the University’s designation as a Pontifical University.
CUA’s School of Canon Law, the only one of its kind in the United
States, offers only ecclesiastical degrees.)CUA also has a civil charter
granted by the Congress of the United States.CUA was initially established
solely as a graduate-level research university. It was the first US
Catholic university to offer the doctorate.
As a graduate institution,
from the outset CUA’s model for the assessment of student outcomes
followed the traditional format for graduate education, which emphasizes
a capstone experience integrating important educational goals of an
individual department or School and a field as a whole. At the master’s
degree level, general practice was for students to receive intensive
training in the research methods of their specialty field, complete
comprehensive examinations and write theses. (Today, some master’s
level students elect a non-thesis option, which involves qualification
in particular field-specific, technical research skills and the submission
and refining of two research papers. In applied fields, such as architecture
or drama the master’s capstone involves extensive design projects
or major roles in or responsibilities for major productions and related,
analytical written products.) At the doctoral level, students completed
multi-day comprehensive examinations, conducted original research and
wrote up the results in dissertations, which they defended in oral examinations.
One consequence of CUA's having
begun as a graduate institution has been that, since undergraduates
were first admitted in 1904, their assessment was modeled on this capstone-experience
approach traditional to graduate assessment. Faculty support remains
strong for this assessment model in which passing a comprehensive examination
and completing an extensive research project have been essential to
receiving an undergraduate degree. The resultant series of rigorous
undergraduate capstone experiences typically includes: (1) junior-year
seminars on research methods; (2) senior capstone courses; (3) comprehensive
exams and/or senior projects, recitals and performances.
Institutional
Goals
Integral to the conceptual
framework on which we build our student learning goals and their outcomes
measurement is the principle that at CUA individual programs are built
on a foundation of the Institution’s mission (see above), goals and
strategic plan. The most recent iteration of the university’s goals,
which the Board of Trustees approved in 1980, still resonates today.
Summarizing, these goals assert the university’s commitment to:
Sustaining academic
excellence within Catholic and American contexts in undergraduate, graduate
and professional education and cultivation of the arts, and assuming
leadership in the advancement of learning and development of knowledge
within the context of the Christian revelation at each of these levels.
Faith is consistent with reason, and theology and religious studies
benefit from critical inquiry.
Preserving a special
excellence in theology, philosophy and canon law.
Offering graduate
programs that promote scholarship, scientific research and the training
of future scholars to advance knowledge and sustain a highly qualified
faculty to enrich undergraduate and professional programs.
Emphasizing liberal
studies with a focus on the whole person and the Western tradition.
At the undergraduate level, this means religious studies and philosophy
are as integral to the curriculum as requirements in the arts and humanities,
languages and literatures, and natural and social sciences. At the professional
level, it means CUA imbues its programs with the learning and values
inherent in both academic and Catholic traditions.
Supporting scholarship
and research in religious and philosophical studies as the top priority
at the advanced level. Other priorities are advancing humanistic learning,
serving the contemporary and future needs of society and the Church
and sustaining academic strengths not represented elsewhere.
Recognizing that
its distinctive character derives from the intellectual and moral standards
of its community members. Thus, CUA continues the tradition of collegial
governance to foster a climate within which all members of the university
community have influence.
Fulfilling its obligation
to the larger community of which it is a part. Its presence in the nation’s
capital offers unique opportunities to influence public policy and the
crucial issues of our time. Its unique relationship with the Catholic
Church guides it to prepare clergy and other Church leaders and undertake
factual investigations and discussions of principles to influence policy.
Comprehensive
Student Learning Assessment Process
Today under the direction of
the Provost, an Associate Vice President for Academic Planning oversees
CUA’s Student Learning Assessment Plan and process, which supports
the improvement of teaching and learning across the university, and
assures its connection with the self-study process of the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), the regional body that accredits
the institution, the institution’s current strategic plan (see below)
and its mission and goals (see above). The university’s assessment
plan incorporates (1) the contents of a conceptual framework that describes
the process, its constituent parts and its benefits; (2) the MSCHE standards
framework and (3) the university’s own framework and timetable for
implementation of practices that execute the concepts and standards.
Strategic Plan
(2006)
Within the context of the extended
period of re-examination and reflection that CUA has undergone since
its last MSCHE re-accreditation (2000), the current five-year strategic
plan signals a continued collective CUA community commitment to sustain
the university’s standing among the leading Catholic universities
in the nation and around the world. The current strategic plan bridges
the university’s goals and the continuous quality enhancement and
planning processes that assure that we meet these goals well into the
future.
From the perspective of enhancing
student learning at the graduate level, Strategic Concentration #1 focuses
CUA’s community on identifying and directing additional resources
to develop creative and relevant professional full and part-time graduate
programs to serve the Washington region, as well as to strengthen the
specific traditional research-based graduate programs that advance CUA’s
mission and are recognized for their excellence. This Concentration
also calls attention to the need to continue improving research support
services.
For the undergraduate level,
the strategic plan stresses renewed excellence in Catholic undergraduate
education and campus life. Strategic Concentration #2 focuses on several
areas that impact directly the quality of student learning. These include:
expanding the global education program (e.g. study abroad – CUAbroad),
so that more students can experience the academic and cultural benefits
of living and learning in another country; implementing a new “First-Year
Experience Program” for all freshmen, as a collaborative effort between
academic programs and the Division of Student Life; increasing opportunities
for undergraduate students to participate in faculty research, and executing
a coordinated, university-wide Service Learning Program.
Conceptual Framework
Guiding Principles
Faculty and Campus Life professionals
drive the design of CUA’s student learning assessment plan; the Administration
guides and supports it. Direct assessment measures, embedded in each
course and in capstone experiences, have their basis in program and,
for undergraduates, School distribution requirements. Among other assessment
sources are the results of standardized national surveys; pass rates
on licensure, certification or subject area examinations; institutional
data on course grades, student characteristics, enrollment, retention
and time to milestones and program completion; results from the university’s
student course evaluation process; information from the division of
student life and the office of campus ministry and alumni data. A set
of principles, outlined below, shapes the plan and its conceptual framework
as a continuous, collaborative process for improvement:
The University is
committed to student learning assessment, broadly defined to include
students’ personal and social development, and sustaining and enhancing
a coherent process for assessing its academic and co-curricular activities.
Faculty members
are best suited to establish student learning goals for their academic
programs and courses and decide how to assess their students’ learning
outcomes. A student learning assessment process that is faculty-driven
ensures that all faculty members are directly involved, honors academic
freedom, faculty responsibility for the curriculum and principles of
collegial governance.
Administrators provide
leadership and accountability to the process. They also ensure the availability
of related professional development opportunities and the dissemination
of information on assessment tools, activities and results, including
data on student attitudes about the college experience from national
surveys and the non-academic divisions of the university and the results
of nationally standardized licensure and subject-area tests, when pertinent.
Assessment plans,
policies and guidelines are written, shared and periodically evaluated.
Every academic unit
and the components of Campus Life engage in ongoing assessment of student
outcomes. (Assessment is not conducted only in selected programs or
episodically.) In every academic unit, learning activities support learning
goals, and multiple assessment tools and techniques are used systematically
over time to ensure that every student, regardless of background or
learning style, can demonstrate what s/he has learned. Student Life
ensures the availability of quality supports for student learning and
preparation for life after the university, while Campus Ministry provides
opportunities for faith development and facilitates student involvement
in social justice, community service and outreach activities.
The assessment of
student learning outcomes depends on systematic collection of reliable
data. Data collection is as simple, unobtrusive and as manageable as
possible. The data collected identify strengths and shortcomings in
academic programs that make it possible to improve student, departmental/School
and institutional performance. The data collected for Campus Life assesses
the fuller context of students’ learning experiences important to
student engagement and retention and each student’s development as
a whole person.
Faculty members
working collaboratively on both a department/School level and across
disciplines, departments and Schools to determine how to use the results
of student learning outcomes assessment in their planning to improve
individual courses and programs and attain institutional goals. Faculty
members and staff understand that this information is intended to “close
the loop” in a continuous improvement process.
Departments, Schools
and the institution use the results of student assessments to evaluate
the effectiveness of academic programs and activities, the full variety
of student services and campus ministry rather than the performance
of individual faculty or staff.
The university’s
culture of assessment results from implementing a comprehensive institutional
assessment process in which the assessment of student learning is central,
as an ongoing and institutionalized process and data source.
Appendix A displays the conceptual
framework that is both foundation and oversight structure for the assessment
of student learning outcomes at CUA. Its feedback loops and inter-communication
paths demonstrate the multi-dimensional and continuous nature of the
assessment process and the connections among the different segments
of the university’s community who are involved. This framework clarifies
the connections among the overarching Student Learning Assessment Plan,
CUA’s mission and goals and the roles of its faculty and administration
in the process. This framework supports continuous quality enhancement
in teaching and learning.
Benefits of
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Also part of our conceptual
framework for student assessment, and a primary reason that institution-wide
assessment processes have been ingrained in CUA’s practices for so
long, is an appreciation of its benefits to every segment of the university
community. We describe these benefits as follows:
For students,
It is informative.
It communicates clear expectations about what is important in a course,
program or field. It makes their evaluation transparent and suggests
that it will be consistent.
It is formative.
It provides students with ongoing feedback they can use to improve their
performance. It supports students’ personal and spiritual development
outside the classroom.
It is summative.
It sums up what they have accomplished in a course or program. It gives
them a better sense of the progress they are making in acquiring the
knowledge and developing the skills they expect to achieve to graduate.
For faculty and
Campus Life professionals,
It is informative.
It gives them a better picture of what is and what is not working in
their respective courses/programs/services. It helps programs, departments/Schools
and Campus Life determine what’s working on a larger scale. It can
stimulate interdisciplinary and institution-wide discussions about the
entire student experience.
It is formative.
It provides the data to nourish course, program, department/School and
Campus Life feedback loops and enables efforts to shape better courses
and programs and student supports, services and ministry-related experiences.
It is summative.
It provides faculty, departments/Schools and Campus Life with data central
to short-term improvements and long-range planning. It offers evidence
they can use to justify requests for additional resources to maintain
or improve programs and services. It helps them tell their story to
people outside their department, e.g. prospective students, foundations
or government grantmaking agencies, administrators, trustees, etc.
For administrators,
It is informative.
It gives them a clearer picture of what is really happening in the institution’s
academic and Campus Life programs.
It is formative.
Multiple feedback loops that nourish each other demonstrate an institutional
commitment to ongoing improvement in academic programs and the full
depth and breadth of the student experience, while they also supply
data to ongoing institutional assessment, strategic planning and regional
accreditation self study processes.
It is summative.
It tells the administration what the university’s core activities
are accomplishing. It provides valuable evidence to support requests
to donors. It demonstrates accountability to funding sources and accrediting
bodies. It can be persuasive to future students, faculty, staff and
the larger community.
MSCHE
Standards Framework
In 2002, the MSCHE, the regional
body that accredits CUA, introduced a new emphasis on student learning
assessment. From then through 2006, it gradually released guidance that
clarified the expectations of Standard 14, which states: “Assessment
of learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appropriate points,
the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies
consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals.”2
For MSCHE, assessing student achievement of learning outcomes is the
third in a four-step teaching-learning-evaluation cycle that is integral
to the life of the institution.
As suggested by MSCHE, at CUA
the four-step student learning outcomes cycle (Fig. 2 below) begins
with the faculty’s development of clearly articulated student learning
goals that delineate the knowledge, skills and competencies that students
should demonstrate to complete a course, general education requirement
or degree program along with the companion measures they will use to
ascertain whether students achieve these goals. It continues with the
faculty, department/School and also Campus Life offering experiences,
courses and programs that provide students with opportunities to achieve
the goals. The third step is evaluating student
Develop/revise goals for student
learning. Develop/ revise outcome measures appropriate to goals.
Analyze and use results to
understand and improve student learning.
Apply measures to assess student
learning outcomes
Offer students opportunities
to achieve goals.
achievement of the learning
goals using the measures identified in step one, and the cycle ends
and begins again with their use of the results that student assessment
generates to enhance student learning, teaching, course and curriculum
development and inform planning and decisions about the allocation of
departmental and university resources.
MSCHE does not prescribe specific
methods for setting goals, the use of particular assessment measures,
or the timing of assessments. MSCHE has indicated, however, requirements
for the overall assessment process. Under Standard 14, the Fundamental
Elements of the assessment process requires:
clearly articulated
statements of expected student learning outcomes … at all levels and
for all programs … that are:
appropriately integrated
with one another;
consonant with the
institution’s mission; and
consonant with the
standards of higher education and … the relevant disciplines;
a documented, organized,
and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning
that meets the following criteria:
systematic, sustained
and thorough use of multiple qualitative and/or quantitative measures
that:
maximize the use
of existing data and information;
… relate to the
goals they are assessing;
are of sufficient
quality that results can be used with confidence to inform decisions;
and
include direct evidence
of student learning;
support and collaboration
of faculty and administration;
clear, realistic
guidelines and timetable, supported by appropriate investment of institutional
resources;
sufficient simplicity,
practicality, detail, and ownership to be sustainable; and
periodic [re-]evaluation
of the … institution’s student learning assessment processes;
assessment results
that provide sufficient, convincing evidence that students are achieving
key institutional and program learning outcomes; [elsewhere in Standard
14, MSCHE specifically states that the use of indirect measures alone
does not meet this standard]
evidence that [the
results of student learning assessments are] shared and discussed with
appropriate constituents and … used to improve teaching and learning;
and
documented use of
student learning assessment information as part of institutional assessment.3
MSCHE supplements these fundamentals
with suggestions for additional, optional analyses and evidence. Among
these are evidence of governance structures, policies, financial support,
and professional development opportunities supportive of student learning
assessment; protocols and workable processes to foster the dissemination
and analysis of outcomes results; evidence and analyses of evidence
that any changes made as a result of outcomes assessment have had the
intended results; analysis of student evaluations of their courses and
faculty, and analysis of reports on classroom assessment practices,
including grading approaches.4
CUA’s
Implementation Framework
Initial Student
Learning Assessment Plan
As if in anticipation of the
MSCHE’s 2002 announcement of a heightened emphasis on student assessment
and quality enhancement, during AY 2000-2001 a CUA committee brought
together the several components of a university-wide outcomes assessment
process, which resulted in both the university’s first comprehensive
institutional outcomes assessment plan (2001) and its first compilation
of the ingredients of its student learning assessment plan – a move
that made the university’s quality expectations more explicit and
public. CUA programs and Schools have also been accredited by various
specialized accreditation bodies for many years. These specialized accreditors
had begun to emphasize student learning assessment, which further facilitated
development of the initial, consolidated student learning assessment
plan. This early student learning assessment plan included not only
data collection and analysis related to students’ academic achievement
(retention, progression, performance indicators, etc.) but also student
attitudes, social and ethical values, interests, commitment to lifelong
learning, volunteerism and personal and professional growth. These data
were available because CUA had already been administering the following
nationally standardized outcomes assessment surveys: American College
Testing (ACT) Student Opinion Survey, Cooperative Institutional Research
Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey, the Higher Education Research Institute
(HERI) Faculty Survey and its College Senior Survey, a proprietary Graduate
Alumni Survey, the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS) Undergraduate
Alumni Survey, a proprietary Alumni Career Survey and the National Survey
of Student Engagement (NSSE). As a result, in 2001 a good complement
of student assessment data was already available, including information
obtained from applicants, while they were students, as they were graduating
and as alumni/ae. Missing from this plan, however, were procedures for
determining whether goals for student learning were articulated and
any mechanisms for reporting findings from most academic outcomes assessments
beyond the course level or sharing important data, such as NSSE results,
among the university community, especially with faculty, or any suggestions
about how these data were or should be used.
Consolidation
of Assessment Processes
in an Era of
Increased Emphasis on Accountability in Accreditation
In 2003, to reflect the heightened
importance of assessment of student learning outcomes for the university
following the publication of additional guidance through MSCHE,5
the Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies assumed oversight
of CUA’s student learning assessment plan.
In 2004, the university asked
most programs to submit (1) goal statements for their programs, (2)
descriptions of the principal measures by which the programs assessed
student achievement of those goals, and (3) justifications for the suitability
of those methods. For the first time, CUA posted this outcomes-related
information on the web at http://outcomes.cua.edu .
Also, during this era, the
University ended its use of a generic course and faculty evaluation
tool (SUMMA) in favor of a proprietary version that allowed it the flexibility
to shape the content, e.g., the addition of a question to ascertain
student perceptions of whether a course had met its stated outcomes
and more. University librarians compiled a bibliography, which they
have since expanded, to aid faculty in improving their assessment plans.
The Division of Student Life introduced additional measures to assess
student needs, benchmark satisfaction levels and evaluate program effectiveness,
and Career Services continued using several different tools from which
it compiled results on graduate school attendance, graduates’ (of
undergraduate and graduate programs) first jobs and other topics. All
this information was also posted to the http://outcomes.cua.edu website.
Website contents:
outcomes.cua.edu
2004 "Assessments"
documents (by School)
Career exit surveys
Measurements of
student engagement (NSSE)
Student course evaluations
(accessible only to registered system users)
Assessment sources
(library holdings)
Assessment bibliography
(articles, reports, websites)
Current Implementation Framework
The following updates the 2001
student assessment plan to incorporate the additional structure imposed
on the process beginning in 2004, more recent initiatives and plans
for further enhancements.
The Provost, the university’s
chief academic officer, is responsible for overseeing the assessment
process and for integrating the student learning assessment plan with
the overarching institutional outcomes assessment plan. As noted previously,
the Provost has delegated day-to-day management oversight of the student
learning assessment plan to the Associate Vice President for Academic
Planning, who is supported directly by the Office of Student Learning
Assessment as well as by collaboration of the Office of Planning and
Institutional Research. Various standing academic bodies inform assessment
(see Attachment A). The Provost convenes the Administrative Leadership
Group which addresses student learning assessment as well as other academic
priorities. The ALG is comprised of Associate Provosts, the Associate
Vice President for Academic Planning, the academic deans and the directors
of the university honors program, global education, summer sessions,
University Libraries, and Center for Planning and Information Technology
(CPIT). Other bodies that inform student learning assessment are
the Associate and Assistant Deans’ Committee and the student learning
assessment committees within each School or department. The faculty
is at the heart of the assessment effort and is in communication with
or represented on these academic groups. An essential contributor to
the evaluation and development of student learning assessment is the
University Assessment Council and its subcommittees (described below).
Campus Life joins Academic Affairs in these communication and feedback
processes integral to the overarching student learning assessment plan
through the University Assessment Council as well as the monthly Campus
Life directors’ meetings that include the Vice President for Student
Life, the University Chaplain (representing Campus Ministry) and directors
of a range of offices including the Dean of Students, Career Services,
Counseling Center, Student Health Services, Public Safety and Student
Programs and Events. In developing the current implementation framework
(Appendix A), one of the Associate Vice President’s primary roles
has been to integrate and align the frameworks for conceptualizing and
implementing student assessment with MSCHE’s guidance concerning Standard
14 (CRAC, 2003; MSCHE, 2005, 2006), and the comments from reviewers
of the 2005 Periodic Review Report, all of which in effect updated the
feedback the university received during its last full accreditation
review (2000).
The Associate Vice President
for Academic Planning chairs the University Assessment Council, which
facilitates implementation of the student learning assessment plan by
providing guidance, structure and support for the assessment of student
learning throughout the university. The Council has one subcommittee
each for graduate education, undergraduate education, general education
and campus life. Council members include faculty from the appropriate
programs, university librarians, Campus Life professionals and students.
The Council, which meets quarterly,
serves as both consultant and advisor on assessment to the Provost and
the Associate Vice President for Academic Planning. It makes recommendations
regarding implementation of and policies to support the student learning
assessment plan. It creates guidelines for reporting assessment activities,
reviews assessment evaluations conducted by its subcommittees and assists
the Associate Vice President with the bi-annual updating of the student
learning assessment plan.
Subcommittees meet monthly
in the intervening months between Council meetings. Each member of the
Council and its subcommittees serves as a liaison, who consults with
or advises colleagues on the assessment of student outcomes, as s/he
reports to and seeks input from his/her constituent groups on assessment
policies and practices for the Council. The Council’s subcommittees
review both program evaluation and student assessment plans in their
respective areas of responsibility. Subcommittees also review annual
and five-year assessment findings reports, and they help facilitate
university-wide discussions of assessment findings and the student learning
assessment plan. They share and celebrate best practices in student
learning assessment within the university community. Each subcommittee
reports regularly to the full Council on its activities.
The faculty in each department/School
defines or refines its program (degree or certificate), department and/or
School’s student assessment plan in its Statement of Goals and Assessment
of Student Learning Outcomes report (see initiatives below). Faculty
members analyze and discuss assessment findings and plan subsequent
improvements in courses and programs. These discussions are the basis
for the annual assessment findings reports. Taken together, these documents
constitute the centerpiece of CUA’s student learning assessment plan.
The Council/Subcommittee framework enables faculty, departments and
Schools to exchange information about assessment plans and best assessment
practices, identify shared concerns and collaborate across disciplines
to address their concerns and improve student learning campus wide.
This framework engages in the process for enhancing student learning
the other key support functions, including libraries and Student Life,
Campus Ministry, CPIT, Summer Sessions and Global Education and it disseminates
results from nationally-standardized assessments and the university’s
proprietary measures, including student course evaluations, alumni surveys,
etc.
The student learning assessment
plan operates at three levels, as follows:
CUA Student
Learning Assessment Plan:
Examples of
Measures at 3 Levels of Assessment
Level
Direct Measures
Indirect Measures
Course:
(1) Grades based on explicit
criteria directly related to clear student learning goals
(2) Rubric scores for writing,
presentations, performances, projects
(3) Course and homework assignments
(4) Participation in class
discussions
(5) Quizzes and examinations
(6) Research or other applied
projects, such as artistic products and performances
(7) Analyses of case studies
(8) Observations of performance
in field work, internships, service learning or clinical experiences
(1) Reviews of course syllabi
(2) Student course evaluations
(3) Grades not based on explicit
criteria directly related to clear student learning goals
(4) Number of student hours
spent in field work, internships, service learning or clinical experiences
(5) Comparative registration
or course enrollment information
Program:
(1) Rubric scores for capstone
experiences, e.g., projects; performances; research papers, theses,
dissertations
(2) Performance on capstone
examinations
(3) Portfolios or other explicit
student reflections on what they have learned in a given program
(4) Pass rates or scores on
national licensure, certification or subject area tests
(5) Student publications or
conference presentations
(6) Supervisor or employer
ratings on field work, internships, service learning or clinical experiences
(7) Annual faculty reviews
of student progress
(1) Assessment Findings and
Curricular Improvements report (every 5 years)
(2) Annual Key Assessment Findings
report
(3) Student exit surveys
(4) Annual and/or exit student
focus groups
(5) Alumni surveys
(6) Interviews or focus groups
with faculty or supervisors/employers
(7) Program or department/School
review data
(8) Career surveys/job placement
data
(9) Graduate school placement
rates
(10) Employer surveys
(11) Student perception surveys
(12) Program progression rates
Institution:
(1) Performance on tests/examinations
related to general education requirements based on explicit criteria
(2) Rubric scores for papers/products/presentations
in classes related to general education/other distribution requirements
(3) Student reflections on
what they have learned in institutional programs, such as Campus Ministry
(1) Bi-annual reviews of student
learning assessment plan
(2) Composites/analyses of
Annual and Five-year Assessment Findings and Curricular Improvements
reports
(3) Standardized national surveys
of student perceptions or other student self-reporting
(4) Retention rates
Note: Adapted from Student
Learning Assessment, MSCHE, 2007, p. 29.
This student learning assessment
plan operates on the following annual timetable:
Annual Timeline:
Student Assessment Plan for Academic Programs
Date
(AY cycle)
Assessment
Activity
August
Annual Reports: Deans submit
to Provost
Quarterly
(beginning in Fall)
University Assessment
Council meets
Monthly (intervening
months)
Subcommittees of the University
Assessment Council meet (in the months when the full Council does not
meet)
Fall
Annual NSSE Survey: Preparation
and submission of survey materials
Ongoing
throughout Fall Semester
Faculty administers varied
student outcome measures embedded in course work
September
15
Syllabi: Faculty submits conforming
fall semester syllabi to department chairs/School Deans.
September
30
Assessment Findings and Curricular
Improvements (report): Departments/Schools post previous AY annual findings
and improvements report and, as necessary, updates to Goals Statements.
Late October
Graduate student comprehensive
exam period (capstone)
December
Student course evaluations:
Students complete course/faculty evaluations for their Fall semester
courses.
December
Annual NSSE Survey: Results
available from previous AY administration (e.g., AY 2009 results available
12/09)
Early
January
Annual CIRP Freshman Survey:
Results available (e.g., Mar-Oct ‘09 results available 1/10)
Early
January
Departments/Schools hold Fall
Semester review of individual student progress, as needed.
Late
January
Student course evaluations:
Results of Fall semester evaluations posted. Deans receive rank-ordered
analysis of key results.
Ongoing
throughout Spring Semester
Faculty administers varied
student outcome measures embedded in course work
January/February
Annual NSSE Survey: Administrations
begins
February
15
Syllabi: Faculty submit conforming
spring semester syllabi to department chairs/School Deans
March through
Summer
Annual CIRP Freshman
Survey: Administration
Late March
Graduate student comprehensive
exam period (capstone)
Late Mar/early
Apr
Undergraduate senior comprehensive
exam period (capstone)
Late
Apr/early May
Student course evaluations:
Students complete course/faculty evaluations for Spring semester courses
Late Apr/early
May
CUA Undergraduate Exit Survey:
All graduating seniors complete
May
CUA Graduate Alumni Survey:
Results available from previous year’s survey
May
CUA Undergraduate Exit Survey
and Alumni Survey results available for previous year’s graduates
May
Departments/Schools hold annual
reviews of student progress and in-depth review and discussion of annual
assessment results. They outline course and curricular adjustments to
make in the coming year, as necessary.
June 1
NSSE Annual Survey: Administration
closes
June
1
Syllabi: Faculty submits conforming
Summer Session I syllabi to department chairs/School Deans and the Director
of Summer Sessions
Early
July
Student course evaluations:
Results of Spring semester evaluations posted. Deans receive rank-ordered
analysis of key results.
July
15
Syllabi: Faculty submits conforming
Summer Session II syllabi to department chairs/School Deans and the
Director of Summer Sessions
Summer: 1
week following start of special session classes
Syllabi:
Faculty submits conforming Special Summer Session syllabi to department
chairs/School Deans and the Director of Summer Sessions
Summer into
Fall
CUA Graduate Alumni Survey:
Administration
Summer into
Fall
CUA Undergraduate Alumni Survey:
Administration
Late Spring 2011Next bi-annual review of Student Learning
Assessment Plan
September
2013
Departments post 2nd
summative 5-Year report on Assessment Findings and Curricular
Improvements
Recent Student Learning Assessment
Initiatives
To align the faculty’s student
learning assessment practices and, therefore, the overarching student
learning assessment plan with the four-part MSCHE framework and assure
the presence of the sorts of evidence that it expects to see of
an effective student learning assessment process, beginning in 2007
CUA’s administration began guiding significant, simultaneous improvements
in the structure and rigor of the university’s student learning assessment
plan. Highlights of these improvements are the following:
Course syllabi
requirements: The introduction of a template (see Appendix B) for
the development of all course syllabi ensures that at the start of every
course the instructor informs his/her students in writing of the course’s
goals for student learning with related assessment measures. Faculty
members submit their syllabi to their department chairs/School deans
for review and posting on our assessment website at the start of each
semester, and department/School assessment committees review samples
to monitor compliance. In the future, we anticipate that the Subcommittees
on undergraduate and graduate student assessment, respectively, will
incorporate a comparison among sample syllabi into their roles in the
student learning assessment process.
As a result of this initiative,
departments/Schools can now document that their faculty members have
been setting goals for student learning grounded in program and department/School
goals. They can also provide evidence that they are making direct connections
between the opportunities that specific courses and course content offer
students to achieve these goals and how their accomplishments are being
assessed relative to the goals.
It is important to note
that in the syllabus initiative (and the other initiatives described
below) the templates mentioned serve as guidance to assure that CUA’s
student learning assessment plan is consistent with the expectations
of regional accreditation (MSCHE). Templates are not an effort to restrict
the flexibility that individual faculty members should have to set goals,
select measures and craft assessment plans for courses and programs,
nor do they prescribe the tenor of internal program, department or School
conversations, analyses and reports on assessment results.
Revision
by department/school of degree program
statements of “Goals and Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes”:
The Academic Planning Office spearheaded a campus-wide revision of these
department/program standards, which had last been published in 2004.
Beginning with undergraduate programs and extending to encompass graduate
programs, in collaboration with the Provost’s Office it developed
and distributed sample formats (see Appendices C and D) to guide the
revision effort and propose common content for all degree and certificate
programs’ continuous assessment plans. Each department’s/School’s
document (2007, 2008) now includes descriptions of all their degree
or certificate programs with goals for student learning, brief description
of multiple measures of student learning assessment outcomes (direct
and indirect) appropriate to the goals and summary description of the
steps the faculty follows to review and use the results that these outcome
measures generate to improve student learning, i.e. their formal planning
and curriculum development process. These documents, which update the
previous outcomes descriptions that appear on the original outcomes.cua.edu
website, will all be available on a new website, http://assessment.cua.edu in 2009.
As a result of this initiative,
each department/School has now documented that it has in place an annual
process for reviewing student progress and assessment results, which
also provides the opportunity for faculty to revise these Goal Statements
documents, as needed, to ensure that they are not stagnant.
Implementation
by department/school of annual and summative five-year
reports of “Assessment Findings and Curricular Improvements”:
To encourage the closing of the feedback loop envisioned in the above
Statements and the overarching assessment plan, in 2008 the Academic
Planning Office established what will become an ongoing, annual reporting
process for assessment findings and related curricular improvements.
The summative
five-year reporting process ensures that faculty engages with the full
range of direct and indirect student assessment data and elicits a report
that is a product of their thoughtful analysis of, reflection on and
response to these data in context. This process implements a critical
new mechanism for disseminating to departments/Schools the results of
institutional data to complement information from unit’s assessment
processes. For undergraduate programs, CUA distributed five years of
data for key courses on enrollment, grades, and course evaluations as
well as results from the National Survey of Student Engagement. For
graduate programs, the data/report places a new, critical emphasis on
student progression rates, providing five-years of course data and five-years
of data on enrollment, retention and attainment of milestones such as
the passage of comprehensive exams and completing degrees. For the initial
implementation, the Academic Planning Office asked departments/Schools
to complete analyses for the immediately preceding five-year period
(Fall 2002 through Fall 2007), using a suggested template for undergraduate
and graduate programs (see Appendices E and F). Documentation includes
(1) discussion of direct assessment measures (e.g., at a minimum performance
in capstone projects and pass rates on comprehensive examinations) and
other indirect measures (e.g., student course evaluations, program review
data, alumni surveys, etc.); (2) reflections on analyses of enrollment,
student performance, and students’ instructor and course ratings and
the department’s/School’s use of NSSE results to benchmark its seniors’
general education outcomes, and (3) a narrative describing curricular
improvements the department/School had introduced as a result of earlier
assessment findings. The next five-year report will be due in September
of 2013.
The new annual
process (Appendices G and H) focuses on faculty review and analysis
of direct evidence of student learning for a one-year time period only.
It is standard procedure in each department/School for either a committee
or the faculty as a whole to meet at least annually, but usually more
often, to review student progress and apply the results of student learning
assessments in their short- and long-term planning to improve instruction
and student outcomes. This new process interjects a guided reflection
and a formal report that is posted to the assessment.cua.edu website
into that process. The reporting format will involve selected pieces
of the data review and analysis excerpted from the more complex five-year
reporting tool (e.g. key indicators with a metric). These annual submissions
will then wrap into and facilitate the preparation of future five-year
summaries.
As a result of these two
closely related initiatives, departments/Schools can now document on
a set schedule (annually and every five years) that they have reviewed
specific quantitative and qualitative data and, then, reflected and
commented on all the recorded assessment findings for their programs.
Implementation
of program-level rubrics: In Spring 2009, the faculty is beginning
to implement rubrics for their programs’ capstone measures so that
we can develop a shared metric for the university’s longstanding direct
measures of student learning outcomes. The Office on Academic Planning
has offered training on rubrics and disseminated sample rubrics (Appendix
I). The initial, shared rubric will be easy to implement, typically
with three common levels (Exceeding Expectations, Meeting Expectations
and Below Expectations) and a recommended three to 10 traits.
As a result of this initiative,
by assigning numeric values (3, 2, 1) to the levels we will be able
to calculate means across programs for the capstone experiences for
the first time. The use of rubrics contributes to sound student learning
assessment practices, which will aid our efforts to improve student
learning, faculty teaching and curriculum planning.
Accessibility
of student learning assessment plan data and processes: Changing
our assessment website’s name from outcomes to assessment, posting
new materials and completing the migration of still current documents/resources
from the current outcomes website will make CUA’s student learning
assessment plan and its student outcomes more transparent. We anticipate
that the new http://assessment.cua.edu website will be in use in Summer
2009. Its contents will include the following:
Proposed New Website Contents:
assessment.cua.edu
Student Learning
Assessment Plan (updated bi-annually)
Department/school
“Goals and Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes” documents (updated
as needed)
Course Syllabi (by
term)
Assessment findings
documents (annual and 5-year updates)
Assessment resources:
CUA approach (e.g., templates, examples of measures/reports)
Assessment resources:
bigger picture on approach (e.g., guidelines on student learning assessment
from MSCHE and specialized accreditors, examples from other universities,
more extensive bibliography)
Student course evaluations
National surveys
summary data (NSSE, CIRP Freshman Survey)
Alumni Surveys
Career Surveys
Undergraduate General Education
Goals
Parallel initiatives focused
on improving undergraduate education give additional depth and structure
to the assessment plan, as they support the vision described in the
current strategic plan and provide real impetus to improve undergraduate
education over both the short- and long-term. In 2006, the Provost and
the Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies began a process that
in Spring 2008 resulted in CUA’s Undergraduate Board approving seven
Undergraduate General Education Goals.6
They are the following:
Graduates will
reflect critically on the interrelationships between faith and reason.
Graduates will
demonstrate knowledge of the Western philosophical and theological traditions.
Graduates will
demonstrate knowledge of and respect for different cultures and religions.
Graduates will
demonstrate proficiency in oral and written communication, including
argumentative essays, research papers, presentations and creative and
collaborative work employing a variety of media.
Graduates will
show facility in critical thinking and reasoned analysis.
Graduates will
demonstrate an understanding of scientific and quantitative reasoning.
Graduates will
demonstrate an ability to find information effectively using appropriate
resources and technologies, critically assess the validity and relevance
of that information and utilize it in ethnical and legal ways.
As a result of this initiative,
the goals will serve as a common foundation for the faculty’s development/review
of student learning goals for undergraduate programs and courses and,
therefore, also the student assessment process. We can see with the
approval of these goals that CUA has begun examining data pertaining
to the success of its departments/Schools in fulfilling general education
goals. The goals themselves connect the University’s undergraduate
distribution requirements (Appendix J) in a way that permits exploration
of the sufficiency and effectiveness of distribution requirements by
School. The Provost has initiated improvement of the first year curriculum
for the 2009-2010 academic year. Subsequently, the Provost plans an
extensive review of general education overall (2010-2011). Assessment
data will be used to inform this process, and to determine the effectiveness
of curricular changes.
All initiatives described above
are integrated into the annual timeline (see above), where appropriate.
Future Improvements to the
Plan
CUA has also set an ambitious
schedule for additional improvements in the student learning assessment
plan, which acknowledges our commitment to meeting the need to demonstrate
a robust continuous improvement process. When implemented, each new
improvement will also become integral to both the strategic planning
and MSCHE self-study processes.
Timeline: Projected Future
Improvements to Student Assessment Process
Time
Frame
New or Improved
Assessment Activity
CY 2009
Spring –
Fall 2009
Capstone Rubrics: Offer training
on rubrics
Spring 2009
Capstone Rubrics: Initiate
campus-wide use
Spring
2009
Electronic support systems:
Create for submission of results from capstone rubrics
Spring
2009
Assessment findings: Distribute
template for annual assessment findings report
Summer
2009
Assessment website: Change
name to assessment.cua.edu. Update to include all revised and new materials
(see chart of projected contents)
Summer 2009
Electronic support systems:
Create for updating goals documents
Summer 2009
Administer new undergraduate
alumni survey
Summer 2009
Begin syllabi collection and
course evaluations for Summer Sessions
Fall
2009
University Assessment Council:
Establish four interdisciplinary sub-committees: One each for undergraduate
programs, graduate programs, General Education programs and Campus Life
Fall
2009
Subcommittees of the University
Assessment Council: Establish operating schedules for AY and set responsibilities
Fall
2009 – Spring 2011
Co-curricular student learning:
Integrate processes and data from Campus Life (Student Life and Campus
Ministry) and University Libraries assessments into the student learning
assessment plan.
Fall 2009-Fall
2010
Assess student learning from
piloted changes to first year curriculum
CY 2010
Spring 2010
MSCHE visit
Spring 2010
Disseminate results from the
new undergraduate alumni survey
Spring 2010
Develop matrices aligning
program goals, general education goals, and assessments for all undergraduate
programs
Fall 2010
Gen Ed Rubrics: Offer training
on rubrics
Fall
2010
Gen Ed Rubrics: Initiate campus-wide
use and incorporate into student learning outcomes assessment process
Fall
2010
Electronic support systems:
Create for submission of results from Gen Ed rubrics
Fall
2010 – Fall 2011
Student course evaluations:
Reassess course evaluation system. Improve content and online options
Fall
2010 – Fall 2011
Graduate Alumni surveys: Improve
content, implementation schedule and online options
CY 2011
Spring
2011
Three levels of assessment:
Re-check alignment/correspondence among for institutional level (Gen
Ed)
Fall
2011
Related educational activities:
Integrate into student learning assessment (CUAbroad, other locations,
internships, etc.)
Appendices
A: Conceptual
framework for Student Learning Assessment
B: Course syllabus
template
C: Undergraduate
Study: Statement of Goals and Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes-
Template
D: Graduate Study:
Statement of Goals and Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes- Template
E: Assessment
Findings and Curricular Improvements: Undergraduate Programs template
F: Assessment
Findings and Curricular Improvements: Certificate, Master’s and Doctoral
Programs template
G. Undergraduate
Study: Annual Assessment Findings and Curricular Improvements - Template
H. Graduate Study:
Annual Assessment Findings and Curricular Improvements – Template
I. Sample
capstone rubric
J: Chart of
undergraduate distribution requirements
Appendix A: Conceptual Framework
for Student Learning Assessment at The Catholic University of America
Faculty
Provost
Assoc. VP for
Academic Planning
Office of Student Learning
Assessment
School/department Committees
on
Student Learning Assessment
Administrative Groups:
Academic Leadership Group Associate
& Assistant Deans
’
Committe
e
Mission
Catholic and National Research
University
University Goals
Campus Life Program Directors
University Assessment Council
SubCommittees on:
Gen
eral
Ed
ucation
Undergraduate Programs
Graduate Programs
Campus Life
Analyze and
use results
Offer opportunities to learn
Develop Goals/Measures
Assess Student Learning
Appendix B
CUA Syllabus Template
8.03.07
The Catholic University of America
<School/Department Name>
<Course number, section
number (if applicable), and title>
<Semester and year>
Specify Graduate or Undergraduate Syllabus if offered to both
groups*
Credit Hours
Prerequisites/ Department consent (if any)
Classroom
Days and hours of class meetings and labs or discussion sections
Instructor contact information
: (same information for co-teachers
or TAs)
Full
name and title
Office
location
Phone
E-mail
Office
Hour
s
Course Description (from Cardinal Station