ComprehensivePlanforSustainingAssessmentPractices

toEnhanceStudentLearningatTheUniversityofScranton

OfficeofEducationalAssessment

ApprovedbyAssessmentAdvisoryCommittee,January15,2016

ApprovedbyFacultySenate,March8,2016UpdatedbyAAC,October24,2017

2

ContentsIntroductionandBackground..............................................................................................................3Purpose..........................................................................................................................................................3GuidingFramework&Principles........................................................................................................4DefinitionofKeyTerms..........................................................................................................................6Procedures....................................................................................................................................................8AcademicPrograms.............................................................................................................................8AcademicDeans.....................................................................................................................................9StudentFormationandCampusLife.........................................................................................10WeinbergMemorialLibrary..........................................................................................................11CenterforTeachingandLearningExcellence..................................................................11

PlanningandInstitutionalResearch.........................................................................................12OfficeofEducationalAssessment...............................................................................................13GeneralEducationAssessment....................................................................................................14

AssessmentAdvisoryCommittee…………………………………………………………………….15AppendixA.................................................................................................................................................16Figure1:CycleforProgramAssessment.....................................................................................16AppendixB............................................................................................................................................17Figure1:CycleforAcademicDeans......................................................................................17Figure2:CycleforIntercollegiateCollaboration............................................................17

AppendixC............................................................................................................................................18Figure1:CycleforGeneralEducationAssessment........................................................18

AppendixD:GeneralEducationAssessmentCommitteeCharge&Membership..19AppendixE:AssessmentCommunicationsFlowChart.....................................................20AppendixF:AssessmentBrief......................................................................................................21

AssessmentBrief:AGuideforUsingResultsforProgramImprovement......................21

3

IntroductionandBackgroundThe University of Scranton instituted a decentralized model for assessment ofstudentlearninginthelate1990s.FollowinganefforttocentralizeeffortsunderaComprehensiveAssessmentPlanin2004,theUniversityreturnedtoadecentralizedmodel in the latter part of that decade, in which each division assumedresponsibility for assessment: The College of Arts & Sciences (CAS), The PanuskaCollege of Professional Studies (PCPS), Kania School ofManagement (KSOM), TheLibrary, and Student Affairs (now Student Formation and Campus Life).InNovember 2013, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE)issuedawarningwithrespecttoitsStandard14:AssessmentofStudentLearning.TheUniversity responded by creating amore visible and coherent infrastructure,namelythefaculty-ledOfficeofEducationalAssessment(OEA).TheOfficeoperatesunderthesupervisionofanAssociateProvostforInstitutionalEffectivenessandisclosely aligned with the offices of Planning & Institutional Effectiveness andInstitutionalResearch.Presently it is staffedby two facultyDirectors, fiveFacultyFellows,andapart-timeAssessmentAnalyst.TheAssessmentAdvisoryCommittee(AAC),whosemembersareappointedby theFacultySenate, counsels theOEA. InNovember 2014, MSCHE lifted the warning with the proviso that sustainedassessment efforts continue in conjunction with a manageable cycle for ongoingimprovementofstudentlearning.TheOEAundertookananalysisofstructuresandprocessesalready inplace inAY2014-15.DatafortheanalysisincludedcollegeandUniversitydocuments,aswellasformaland informalconversationswith those involved inassessmentatall levels.Fromthisanalysis,theOEAconcludedthefollowing:

• Existingassessmentstructuresandprocessesoperateinsilos.• Evidenceofstudentlearningisinconsistentlyreportedandcommunicated.• Programimprovementisinfrequentlydrivenbyevidence.• Program assessment remains isolated and inconsistent across programs

withoutexternal,professionalaccreditationpressures.

PurposeThisplanoutlinesacomprehensivestrategyfortheUniversity’scentralizedsystemofassessmentcyclesandreportingprocedures. Improvements tostudent learningarethuspartofaformalcycleofanalyzing,disseminating,andactinguponevidencegathered.Inmanycases,thenewprocessesrepresentarefinementandarticulation

4

of thosealready inplace, therebyenhancingassessmentat theprogram level andfurtheringtheinstitution’scapacityforself-evaluation.TheplanpaysparticularattentiontotheimportanceoftheUniversity’sCatholicandJesuitmission:namely,itsdedicationtofreedomofinquiryandtothedevelopmentofwisdomandintegrityofall itsmembers. Drawingonunderlyingconceptsfromthe Ignatian pedagogical paradigm1, the University’s student learning assessmentplanensureson-goingevaluation inaneffort tobuilda sustained, evidence-basedprocessforassessingstudentlearningoutcomesacrossprogramsandcurricula.

Evaluation is one of five elements of the Ignatian educational paradigm, firstarticulatedin1599:context,throughwhichthematerialconditionsofthestudent’slearning are considered, aswell as thepredispositionsof the student; experience,throughwhichstudentsmovebeyondrote learning tosomethingmoreactiveandpersonal; reflection, duringwhich students apply the subjectmatter to their ownlivesandprocesses,andwheremeaningissaidtobemadeinthisparadigm;action,whichinvolveschangeinstudents’attitudesandbehaviorsthroughtheapplicationofandreflectionuponknowledge;andevaluation,throughwhichstudents’masteryof subject matter is assessed with a view toward identifying gaps in students’knowledge, the need for alternate methods of teaching, and individualizedapproachestoencouragingandadvisingstudents.2It is in this spirit of the Ratio that The University of Scranton’s approach toassessment of student learning is designed. In particular, the sameprinciples forevaluationofindividualstudentscanbeappliedtoevaluationofgroupsofstudentswhoenrolledinvariousprograms,includingGeneralEducation.

GuidingFramework&PrinciplesIn lightof thenewUniversityStrategicPlan3, assessmentefforts are connected tothis framework for engaged, integrated, and global student learning experiencesthatassiststudentstoachievetheInstitutionalLearningOutcomes:

1. Develop and use the intellectual and practical competencies that are the1See:Duminuco, V. J. (Ed.) (2000). The JesuitRatioStudiorum: 400th anniversary perspectives (1sted.).FordhamUniversityPress:NY,NY.2Witek,D.andGrettano,T.(2016).Revisingformetaliteracy:Flexiblecoursedesigntosupportsocialmediapedagogy.InT.E.JacobsonandT.P.Mackey(Eds.),Metaliteracyinpractice(pp.1-22).Chicago,IL:Neal-Schuman.(Citationisonpage5)3“AnEngaged,IntegratedGlobalStudentExperience.”2015.See:www.scranton.edu/strategicplan

5

foundation of personal and professional development and lifelong learningincluding oral and written communication, scientific and quantitativereasoning,criticalanalysisandreasoning,andtechnologicalcompetencyandinformationliteracy.

2. Exhibitbroadknowledgeofthehumancondition,understandingtheworldinitsphysicalandnaturalaspects,aswellasthephilosophicalandtheologicalbasisformodernthought,faithandbelief.

3. Demonstratecompetenceintheirchosenfieldofstudy,usingtheknowledgeandabilitytoaddressthemostsignificantquestions,andadvancingtowardspositionsofleadership.

4. Employ their knowledge and intellect to address situations in a way thatdemonstrates a devotion to the spiritual and corporal welfare of otherhumanbeings andby a special commitment to thepursuit of social justiceandthecommongoodoftheentirehumancommunity.

This student learning assessment plan, alongside our overall planning andinstitutional effectiveness efforts, is guided by a set of guiding principles of bestpracticewithineachdiscipline:

• Planningandassessmentaremission-driven,guidedbyourcoreeducationalvalues and the Ignatian educational paradigm, which guides Jesuiteducationalinstitutionstoassesslearners’growthinheart,mind,andspirit.

• Planning and assessment are integrated within appropriate advisory anddecision-makingprocessesandstructures.

• Planningandassessmentareiterative,adaptingtochangingneedsandnewopportunities.

• Planning and assessment are collaborative and participatory, engagingmembers of the University community in ways that are appropriate tomembers’rolesandresponsibilities.

• Planningandassessmentaretransparent.Theirprocessesandoutcomesare

communicatedclearlyandfrequently.

• Planningandassessmentareevidencebased.Qualitydataandevidenceare

6

utilizedtodemonstratehowinstitutionalandstudentlearningoutcomesarebeingmet,andhowresultsofassessmentsareusedtoinformplanningandresourcingofprogramsandservices.

• Planning and assessment are formative and summative, guiding and

reflectingourperformanceovertime.

• Planning and assessment are themselves assessed. Their processes areevaluated and refined through ongoing reflection and planned cycles ofreview.

TheOfficeofEducationalAssessment (OEA)coordinatescampus-wideassessmentof student learning outcomes. As a Faculty-led and driven office it serves theinstitution by developing faculty and staff expertise in methods of collection,analysis,andactionsothatcurricularchangesaredrivenbyconstructiveattentiontoevidence.TheOEAsharesresourcesandexpertisesothata largerrepositoryofteaching and learning information can remain central to evidence-baseddecision-makingaboutJesuiteducationalexcellence.The OEA is comprised of a Director, a Director of General Education (GE)Assessment, and five Faculty Fellows representing each of the three colleges.Through an application and selection process, OEA Directors and Fellows areappointed from among the full-time faculty. The Assessment Advisory Committee(AAC),comprisedoffaculty,professionalstaff,andastudentrepresentative,advisestheOEA.TheFacultySenateapproves facultyappointments to theAAC. TheOEAworks collaboratively with other units that support the assessment of studentlearning and our approach to continuous improvement, including the offices ofPlanning&InstitutionalEffectivenessandInstitutionalResearch.

DefinitionofKeyTermsAssessment Plan for Programs (APP): The plan for conducting programassessmentoverathree-yearcycle.Assessment Artifact: assignments, testquestions,orotherstudentwork that canbeassessed inaggregatetodeterminestudents’attainmentofcourse,program,orinstitutionallearningoutcomesCo-curricular: formal and informal experiences that foster student learning anddevelopment.Co-curricularactivitiesare,typically,butnotalways,definedbytheir

7

separation from academic courses. These experiences complement the academicprogramandcreateconnectionsbetweeninandoutofclasslearning.Course-Level Assessment: the use of direct or indirect evidence to demonstratethatstudentsaremeetingthestudentlearningoutcomesforthecourseDirect Assessment: collection and analysis of student work (i.e. assessmentartifacts) to determine students’ attainment of course, program, or institutionallearningoutcomesHighImpactPractices(HIPS):educationalpracticesthathaveasignificantimpacton student success (Kuh, 2008). These can be academic or co-curricular and arecharacterized by collaborative, active learningwith a reflection component. SomehighimpactpracticesatTheUniversityofScrantonareprograms.Indirectassessment:theuseofsurveysorotherself-reportevidencetodeterminestudents’attainmentofcourse,program,orinstitutionallearningoutcomesInstitutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs): what we want graduates of TheUniversity of Scranton to know, do, or value at the completion of their academicprogram(s)andco-curricularexperiencesProgram:developedbodyofcoursesthatreceivestranscriptrecognition

Program Assessment Report (PAR): documented submitted with the AnnualReportsummarizingtheprogram’sasessmentofstudentlearning.

Program-LevelAssessment:theuseofdirectandindirectevidencetodemonstratethatstudentsaremeetingtheProgramLearningOutcomes

Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs): what we want students to know, do, orvalueatthecompletionofanacademicorco-curricularprogramStudentLearningOutcomes(SLOs):whatwewantstudentstoknow,do,orvalueatthecompletionofanindividualcourseorco-curricularexperience

8

ProceduresAcademicProgramsThisplanrequiresthatallacademicprogramsconductassessmentat theprogramlevelonathree-yearcycle(AppendixA,Figure1).Thismeansthatprogramswill:a)identify andassessappropriate learningartifacts,whichareembedded in courseswhose SLOsmost closelymap to ProgramLearningOutcomes for the given cycleand/orb)identifyandassessindirectevidenceofPLOs.Theseactivities,however,donotprecludeprogramsorindividualfacultymembersfromconductingassessmentat the course level for theirown interest, curriculumdevelopment,ortoalignwithexpectationsofdisciplinary(specialty)accreditation.Academicdepartmentsandprograms,includingGeneralEducation(GE)will:

1. EnsurethatSLOsforeverycoursearecommunicatedincoursesyllabi.

2. Asarecommendedbestpractice,ensurethat,foreverycourse,oneormoreSLOsalignswithaPLO

3. Postandmaintainup-to-datePLOsontheprogramwebpage.

4. DevelopandrefineaplantoassessallPLOsonathree-yearcycle.Theplanshould include both direct and indirect assessment evidence using theassessmentplantemplate(seeAppendixA,Figure1).

5. AppointanAssessmentLiaison,whoreportstotheAssistantDeanchargedwith

assessmentineachcollege.(underconsideration).

6. Analyzeevidencecollectedfromkeyassessmentsaccordingtotheplan.

7. ReportanddescribeevidenceofstudentachievementofPLOs,accordingtotheestablishedprocedureineachcollege.

8. Describe how evidence is used to improve student learning and promote

overallprogramimprovement.

9

Inorder tomeet these requirements, programswill collect andarchive theirowndata,withthesupportoftheiracademicDean’soffice.Timeline:Every3years, programs inCAS (oddyears) andPCPS (evenyears)will submit anAssessmentPlan forPrograms(APP) to theirDean’sOffice inOctober.TheDean’soffice will share copies of these plans with the OEA by November 1. KSOM willsubmit an assessment plan to OEA every 5 years, in accordance with itsaccreditationcycle.Programswillcompleteitems#6,and#7byJune30thofeveryyearasacomponentofAnnualReporting4,unlesstheprogramhasundergoneanexternalaccreditationorprogramreviewduringtheacademicyear.Programreviewdocumentsmayserveas aPAR in the springof the academic year inwhichprogram review tookplace.Accreditation reportsmay serve as a PAR in the spring before the scheduled sitevisit.Programswill be responsible for reviewingand, if necessary,updating theirPLOsandcurriculummapswitheveryAPPandProgramReview5.AcademicDeansAcademicDeanswill:

1. Archiveassessmentplansandreports foreachacademicprograminhisorhercollege/division.

2. Ensure and document that academic program assessment plans arereviewed and/or updated on a regular cycle, such as with ProgramReview(currentlyevery5years)orinaccordancewithanaccreditationcycle.

4Every academic and administrative department submits and Annual Report every spring via theUniversity’s electronic Annual Report System. See: www.scranton.edu/planning for moreinformation.5EachcollegemaintainsitsowncyclesforProgramReview.

10

3. Document,disseminateandcommunicateassessmentresultsthroughouttheirrespectivecolleges/divisionthroughcommitteeandothermeetings,annualassessmentdays/retreats,andothermechanisms.

4. WiththeinputofCollegeCurriculumandAssessmentcommittees,which

will review program assessment reports1 in the College, describe anddocument direct and indirect evidence that students in the College aremeeting one ormore of the ILOs through academic programs and highimpactpractices.

Each academic dean leads discussions related to the use of assessment data forprogram improvement within their college with college-level Dean’s Conferencesand Curriculum and Assessment committees, which will review assessmentevidence reported by programs, and identify and recommend to their Deanopportunitiesforimprovementbaseduponthosedata.Onacycle,DeanswillprovideareportbyMarch1totheProvostoncollege-wideassessment evidence, demonstrating the way in which attainment of PLOs in thecollege supports ILOs, and any programmatic changes or improvementsmade toaddressassessmentresults(seeAppendixB,Figure2).StudentFormationandCampusLifeAs importantpartners in the student learningexperience,departmentswithin theDivisionofStudentFormation&CampusLifewillproceedinthefollowingmanner:

1. Departmentswillidentifydirectandindirectevidencethatprogramsandservicesareassistingstudents in theachievementofoneormoreSLOs,whichmaptooneormoreILOs.

2. Departments will articulate changes or improvements in programs orservicesbasedonassessmentresults.

Timeline:

DepartmentssubmitassessmentreportstotheViceProvostforStudentFormationandCampusLifeviatheAnnualReportSystemeachspring.DepartmentswillreporttotheDirectorofStudentConduct&AssessmentonJuly1ofeachAcademicYear.TheVice Provostwill report to the Provost on college-wide assessment evidence,demonstrating the way in which attainment of learning outcomes within SFLC

11

departments and programs supports ILOs, and any programmatic changes orimprovementsmadetoaddressassessmentresults.WeinbergMemorialLibraryTheLibraryFacultyremainintegraltostudentlearning,especiallyregardingLibraryinitiatives in assessment of Information Literacy. 6 The Library’s InformationLiteracyProgramreflectstheframeworkandthestandardsforinformationliteracydevelopedbytheAssociationofCollegeandResearchLibraries(ACRL).

1. Library Faculty will identify direct and indirect evidence that informationliteracyclassesandreferencetransactionsassiststudentsintheachievementofoneormoreoutcomes,whichmaptooneofmoreGEcompetenciesandtoILOs.ThesearefurtherdevelopedandarticulatedbyfacultyintheacademicdepartmentswhoapplyforInformationLiteracyStipendstocollaboratewithLibraryFacultytoincorporateinformationliteracyintotheircourses.7

2. LibraryFacultywillarticulatechangesorimprovementsinthemethodsusedininstructionbasedonassessmentresults.

Timeline:TheLibraryconducts InformationLiteracyProgramassessmentona3yearcycle.FacultysubmitassessmentreportstotheDeanoftheLibraryeachspring,whicharethenpostedontheLibrary’sWebsite.CenterforTeachingandLearningExcellenceThe Center for Teaching& Learning Excellence (CTLE)will continue to provide acomprehensive resource center to support teaching and learning. The CTLEstrengthens student learning via tutoring, reading services, and the WritingCenter. The tutoring program is used by approximatively a quarter of theundergraduate student population, with more than a third of the incoming newstudentsavailingthemselvesofthetutoringoffers.

6FortheLibrary’slong-standingassessmentofInformationLiteracy,includingtheirpresentplan,see:http://www.scranton.edu/academics/wml/infolit/assessment.shtml7ThisassessmentisreflectedinthefinalreportsofthosefacultywhohavereceivedInformationLiteracyStipends,see:http://www.scranton.edu/academics/wml/infolit/stipends/index.shtml

12

1. The CTLE will continue to collect indirect evidence of student academicachievement as a result of participation in the tutoring program, based onstudentdisclosureviasurveys.

2. The CTLE will use the results for continued improvement of the services,withsignificantcooperationandfeedbackfromfacultyliaisonsfromseveralacademicdepartments.

3. The CTLE conducts program assessment of its student services every

semesterviastudentsurveys.PlanningandInstitutionalResearchThe Planning & Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research (IR) officesregularly work with administrative departments on provision of data for AnnualReportsandotherreportingneeds. Specifically, the Office of Institutional Research will assist in student learningassessmentinthefollowingways:

1. Archive information on surveys currently in use across the Universitythat capture indirect evidence of academic and co-curricular studentlearning.

2. Administerkeysurveys(e.g.NSSE,FSSE)

3. Consult with Academic Programs, Colleges, and Student Formation &Campus Life for the purpose of identifying and supplying evidence forindirectassessment.

Timeline:Administration,provision,andarchivingofdatafromnationalstudentsurveysandother indirect measure of assessment, will occur on a cycle determined by thesurveyadministrationdates.Consultationwithdepartmentswilloccuronanadhocbasis(unlessthisdiscussioncan be combined into OEA consultations with academic and student servicedepartment).

13

OfficeofEducationalAssessmentThrough the Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness, who oversees theAssessment portion of the Annual Report, the OEA will review evidence ofeducationaleffectivenessinacademicandco-curricularprograms,includingGeneralEducation.TheOEAwill:1. EnsurethatPLOsmaptoILOsandthatSLOsmaptoPLOsinacoherentand

parsimoniousmanner.

2. Develop and oversee templates, reporting tools, and data managementplatforms for collecting, analyzing and reporting evidence of studentlearning.

3. ReviewassessmentevidencesubmittedtotheProvostbyDeansandothers

by way of the Annual Reporting System according to the proposed cycleoutline.

4. Make recommendations for improvements to program assessment

processes.5. Identifyareasforfacultyandstaffdevelopmentwithregardtoassessmentof

studentlearning;plan,implement,andevaluateresourcesandprogramsforfacultyandstaffdevelopment.

6. HostanannualIntersessionAssessmentInstituteforbroaddiscussionofthe

use of assessment results to monitor and improve academic and co-curricular programs, including GE, and to ensure that the University candemonstrateevidence that itsstudentsandgraduatesaremeeting the ILOs(seeAppendixB,Figure2).

7. ReportevidenceofstudentachievementofPLOsandILOs,aswellastheuse

of evidence for academic programs and co-curricular offerings to thefollowingentities:

i. AACandFacultySenateii. The Office of Planning & Institutional Effectiveness for

communication to the Board of Trustees, MSCHE, and otherstakeholders.

14

8. Develop and communicate information related to best practices in student

learningassessment,communicating these to theUniversitycommunityviameansthatincludetheOEAwebsite,www.scranton.edu/assessment

9. CoordinatespecificdutiesrelatedtotheassessmentoftheGeneralEducation

Program,asdescribedbelow.GeneralEducationAssessment1. UndertheleadershipoftheDirectorofGeneralEducationAssessment,theOEA

willinstitutearegularGEassessmentcycle.

2. Identify subset of PLOs to be assessed on a rotating cycle (see Appendix C,Figure1).

3. Coordinate GE assessment cycle according to subsets of curricular

designations, and utilize appropriate means and measures for electedcompetencies.

4. Analyze&disseminatematerialcollectedfrompreviousyear.

5. Collaborate review of findings,make recommendations, and enact necessary

curricularchangesfromeachsubsetaccordingtothecyclecalendar.6. ProvideanannualreporttotheProvostdemonstratinghowevidence isused

toimprovestudentlearningandpromoteoverallprogramimprovement.7. Promote best practices in GE assessment through information sharing, the

annualIntersessionInstitute,andsummerworkshops.8. Publishonthewebassessmentactivities.

15

Insupportofalloftheseefforts,theAssessmentAdvisoryCommittee(AAC)will:

1. Advise theDirector of theOEA on the impact and effectiveness of OEAprocesses.

2. ServeasaliaisonbetweentheOEAandFacultySenate.

3. Linkevidenceofstudentlearningassessmenttoinstitutionalassessmenteffortstoensureattainmentofstrategicgoals.

4. AdvisetheDirectorof InstitutionalResearchontheselectionanduseof

instrumentsthatprovideindirectevidenceofstudentlearning.

16

AppendixA

Figure1:CycleforProgramAssessment

Year11.IdentifySet1PLOstoassess.

2.DevelopassessmenttoolsforcourseslinkedtoSet1PLOs.3.AssessPLOsthroughcourseslinkedtoSet1PLOs.

4.Prepareanassessmentreportdetailingtheassessmentactivities,assessmentresultsandoutliningthestepsthatmaybetakento"closetheloop"inthecourseslinkedtotheSet1

PLOs.

Year21.IdentifySet2PLOstoassess.

2.DevelopassessmenttoolsforcourseslinkedtoSet2PLOs.

3.AssessPLOsthroughcourseslinkedtoSet2PLOs.

4.Prepareanassessmentreportdetailingtheassessmentactivities,assessmentresultsandoutliningthestepsthatmaybetakento"closetheloop"inthecourseslinkedtoSet2

PLOs.

Year31.IdentifySet3PLOs

toassess.2.Developassessmenttoolsforcourses

linkedtoSet3PLOs.3.AssessPLOsthroughcourseslinkedtoSet3PLOs.4.Preparean

assessmentreportdetailingthe

assessmentactivities,assessmentresultsandoutliningthestepsthatmaybetakento"close

theloop"inthecourseslinkedtoSet3

PLOs

Year35.Implementstepsforclosingthe

loopincourseslinkedtoSet2PLOsasidentimiedinyear2.

6.Prepareashortassessmentreportoutliningthechangesandthe

assessmentresults.

Year25.ImplementstepsforclosingtheloopincourseslinkedtoSet1PLOsas

identimiedinyear1.6.Prepareashortassessmentreport

outliningthechangesandtheassessmentresults.

Year37.Monitorchangesincourses

linkedtoSet1PLOs(implementdinyear2).Plananyfuturechange.Prepareabriefstatusreport.

Note: 1.Every year the program/department will decide to begin theassessment process for no more than one-third of their PLOs. In theaboveflowcharttheyhavebeenidentifiedasSet1PLO,Set2PLOandSet3PLO.2.Eachyearthedepartment/programwillcontinuetocollectassessmentdataontheSetofPLOsthattheyarecontinuingtoassessormonitor.Forexample,inyear3theywillcollectassessmentdataasneededtomonitorchangesrelated toSet 1PLO, to initiateand implementchangesrelatedtoSet2andtobeginassessmentofSet3.3. Assessment is a continuous process. In year 4 the cycle will be

17

AppendixBFigure1:CycleforAcademicDeans

KSOM Spring, 2016 Fall, 2017 PCPS Fall, 2016 Spring, 2018

CAS/Library Spring, 2017 Fall, 2018

Figure2:CycleforIntercollegiateCollaboration

Each January, the University divisions will share best practices and examples ofassessmentevidenceusedinprogrammaticand/orcourse improvements. Twoormore representatives from each division (CAS, Library, Co-Curricular, KSOM, &PCPS) should be present to ensure collaboration. At leastone shared examplefromeachdivisionmustberelatedtoGEAttributes.Division Representatives

CAS 2

PCPS 2KSOM 2Library 2Co-Curricular 2

UNIVERSITYMODELFORCOLLABORATION

Library

SharedBestPractices&Evidence

CAS Co-Curricular

KSOMPCP

S

SharedBest

Practices&Evidence

18

AppendixCFigure1:CycleforGeneralEducationAssessment

Year11.CollectforGEGoals1&2(Set1examples:E,Q,FYW,FYS,FYOC)

2.DevelopassessmenttoolsforcourseslinkedtoSet1PLOs.3.AssessPLOsthroughcourseslinkedtoSet1PLOs.

4.Prepareanassessmentreportdetailingtheassessmentactivities,assessmentresultsandoutliningthestepsthatmaybetakento"closetheloop"inthecourses

linkedtoSet1PLOs.

Year21.CollectforGEGoals2&3

(Set2examples:FYDT,S,CH,CL,CA)2.Developassessmenttoolsforcourses

linkedtoSet2PLOs.3.AssessPLOsthroughcourseslinkedto

Set2PLOs.4.Prepareanassessmentreportdetailingtheassessmentactivities,assessment

resultsandoutliningthestepsthatmaybetakento"closetheloop"inthecourses

linkedtoSet2PLOs.

Year31.CollectforGEGoals5&6(Set3examples:

P,D,CF,CI)2.Develop

assessmenttoolsforcourseslinkedtoSet

3PLOs.3.AssessPLOsthroughcourses

linkedtoSet3PLOs.4.Preparean

assessmentreportdetailingthe

assessmentactivities,assessmentresultsandoutliningthestepsthatmaybetakento"closetheloop"inthecourseslinkedtoSet3PLOs

Year35.ImplementstepsforclosingtheloopincourseslinkedtoSet

2PLOsasidentimiedinyear2.

6.Prepareashortassessmentreportoutliningthechangesand

theassessmentresults.

Year25.ImplementstepsforclosingtheloopincourseslinkedtoSet1PLOs

asidentimiedinyear1.6.Prepareashortassessmentreportoutliningthechangesand

theassessmentresults.

Year37.Monitorchangesincourses

linkedtoSet1PLOs(implementdinyear2).Plananyfuturechange.Preparea

briefstatusreport.

19

AppendixD:GeneralEducationAssessmentCommitteeChargeandMembership

GeneralEducationProgramAssessmentCommitteeTheGeneral EducationProgramAssessment (GEPA) Subcommittee is an advisorygroup supporting the Office of Educational Assessment (OEA) in its pursuit ofenhancing student learning at the University of Scranton. The GEPA collaborateswith the Director of General Education Assessment to develop, implement, andmaintain assessment processes. Faculty and Staff members are approved by theFacultySenate.FollowingSt.IgnatiusofLoyola’sdirectiveto“findGodinallthings,”theUniversityof Scranton understands General Education (GE) to be the foundation for thespiritualdevelopmentandcharacterformationofitsstudents.FoundedonCatholicand Jesuit principles of liberal education, the curriculum aims to integrate theintellectual, spiritualandmoralaspectsof learning toprovideourstudentswithatransformationalexperiencethatwillaidtheminrisingtothechallengeofengagingin the serviceof faithand thepromotionof justice.Membershipensures commonownershipandsharedgovernanceoftheGEcurriculum.

GeneralEducation is increasinglyviewedasasetof competenciesdevelopedovertime, from the earliest first year student experience to the graduating senior, asfocusesonwhatstudentsshouldknow,do,andvalueuponcompletionofaprogramofstudy.

20

AppendixE:AssessmentCommunicationsFlowChart

21

AppendixF:AssessmentBriefAssessmentBrief:AGuideforUsingResultsforProgramImprovementStudent learning assessment is all about determining essential student learningoutcomes –whatwewant students to know, or be able to do as a result of theirlearning – and how well they are meeting those goals. To help illustrate thisprocess,visualssuchastheonebelowarecommonlyused:

The fourth phase of assessment planning – using results - is often referred to as“closing the loop.” Taking the time to review, discuss, and reflect on assessmentresults is an important part of supporting continuous improvement in ourprograms. To facilitate this process, it is essential to share assessment findingsamongst faculty, as well as others involved in academic leadership – departmentchairs, college curriculum and assessment committees, deans, and governancegroups.

Samplequestionstoguidethereviewofassessmentresults:

• Do the results suggest the need to pay more particular attention to thepredispositionand lifeexperiencesof the learner?Whatchangesmightbemade?Howandwhenwilltheybemade?Howandwhenwilltheeffectsofthesechangesbeassessed?

22

• Whatdidtheassessmentresultsindicateaboutthelevelofachievementofthestudentlearningoutcomes?

• Do the results suggest areas where improvements or changes should bemadewithintheprogram,itscurriculum,oritscourses?

TheUniversityofScrantonappliestheIgnatianapproachoflearningtoeducationalassessment. Theapproachprovidesa framework forstudent learningassessmentthrough five focal activities: context, experience, reflection, action, andevaluation.8ThecoremissionandidentityoftheUniversityareclearlytiedtoourassessmentpracticesastheyapplytothe“developmentoftheperson.”9

8SeeKorth,S.J.(2008).PrecisofIgnatianpedagogy:apracticalapproach.In.G.W.Traub(Ed.),AJesuiteducationreader.Chicago,IL:LoyolaPress.9Dumunico,V.J.(Ed.)(2000).TheJesuitratiostudiorum:400thanniversaryperspectives.NewYork,NY:FordhamUniversityPress.