1 DRAFT Institutional Assessment Plan Chicago State University Fall 2014 1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction/Mission Strategic Planning Planning, Measurement, and Effectiveness /Annual planning Assessment of Non-Instructional Units General Education Assessment Assessment in Undergraduate, Graduate, and Certificate Programs University Assessment Committee Professional Accreditations and Accreditation Master Calendar Institutional Surveys and FactBook Program Review Process Institutional Surveys Institutional Assessment Processes and Stakeholders LiveText Online assessment management software Key Web resources and Contacts 2
3 Introduction / Mission In keeping with its mission as a public, comprehensive university, Chicago State University commits us to the development of a learning-centered assessment culture that places the student at its heart. Assessment at CSU is premised upon faculty and staff ownership and collective responsibility. Continuing the development of our assessment tradition, institutional assessment occurs at all levels of the university: program, department or unit, college, division, and the institution as a whole. Assessment helps us to enliven a core question, How do we improve? This is because, beyond effective teaching and institutional practice, assessment at Chicago State exists to serve our students needs and those of the communities we serve. Institutional assessment expresses the university s pride in and commitment to academic excellence, integrity, and access to higher education. The following elements of our institutional assessment will be discussed in this document: Strategic Planning Planning, Measurement, and Effectiveness / Annual planning Assessment of Non-Instructional Units General Education Assessment Assessment in Undergraduate, Graduate, and Certificate Programs University Assessment Committee Professional Accreditations and Accreditation Master Calendar Enrollment Planning (ERG) Effectiveness Assessment of Student Affairs Institutional Surveys and FactBook Program Review Process Institutional Assessment Processes and Stakeholders LiveText Online assessment management software Key web resources and contacts Strategic Planning Strategic Planning at Chicago State operates to fulfill the university mission and drive actions to implement the university vision and values. A university-wide team of faculty, students, staff, and administrators sit on the Strategic Planning Committee. It is their task to review the existing university strategic plan, and in light of data measures of its implementation and relative effectiveness, to develop subsequent planning documents for approval by the President and the Board of Trustees. 3
4 Assessment/measurement of the Strategic Plan occurs through the reporting processes of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Research and reporting around annual planning/the PME process at Chicago State. On May 11, 2012, The Chicago State University Board of Trustees approved the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan and its associated performance measures. The goals of the Strategic Plan are as follows: Strategic Goal 1: Academic Excellence, Teaching and Research (Public Agenda Goal 3) Maintain an institutional structure that respects, develops and reinforces academic rigor, student/ faculty and collaborative research, evidence-based curriculum and faculty/staff development. Strategic Goal 2: Community Service and Engagement (Public Agenda Goal 4) Contribute to the community through economic development activities and mutually beneficial partnerships between educational institutions, healthcare agencies, business, industry, government and community organizations. Strategic Goal 3: Cost Efficiencies & Diverse Revenue Streams (Public Agenda Goal 2) Diversify revenue sources to decrease reliance on the State of Illinois and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of financial management practices across all areas of the university. Strategic Goal 4: Enrollment, Retention and Graduation (Public Agenda Goal 1) Improve the recruitment, retention, and graduation metrics of diverse student population through a nurturing and challenging environment that facilitates the development of competent, creative, resourceful, global and empowered citizens. Strategic Goal 5: Strengthened Infrastructure (Public Agenda Goal 4) Reorganize and strengthen the physical, electronic and operational infrastructures to ensure the deployment of innovative teaching and research technologies as they become available. Strategic Goal 6: Shared Accountability and Image (CSU strategic issue) Foster an environment of shared governance and accountability where input, discourse, recommendations and engagement from all stakeholders promotes a positive image and pride in the University. Planning, Measurement, and Effectiveness /Annual planning The purpose of Planning, Measurement, and Effectiveness, PME, is to implement the Strategic Plan through an annual planning process which includes updating unit missions, goals and objectives, learning and program outcomes, assessment and evaluations, and to establish 4
5 priorities tied to budgeting for these activities. PME working groups are the Steering Committee and the PME Facilitators. The University supports a centralized approach to the development of planning guidelines, management guidelines, and allocation of available resources, while the identification of appropriate goals, outcomes, and measures are determined at the program and/or unit level. This balance allows for relevant and meaningful effectiveness indicators through broad-based involvement from all employee groups. The PME process is primarily supported by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Research (IER) and the Office of Assessment and Program Quality, working with University Administration. These offices provide leadership support and resources for institutional effectiveness and accreditation. These processes assist the institution in maintaining the HLC accreditation, promoting its achievement of mission and goals and fostering continual enhancement of the institution s programs and services for the benefit of the University community. The institutional effectiveness process is cyclical in nature as it navigates the stages of planning, implementation, assessment, analysis, enhancement and action planning. This section is intended to give some guidance on how to craft an institutional effectiveness plan for ALL units. At present, PME planning is undertaken by all university units (offices/departments/areas) that have an appropriated budget. University divisions aggregate unit plan inputs to inform each area vice president s PME plan, related presentations to the University Budget Committee, and ultimately the university president s own PME plan. PME plans should consist of six steps: 1. Identification of alignment with University mission and goals, and development of a unit- specific mission statement 2. Identification of current services, processes or instruction 3. Identification, design and implementation of assessment tools that measure the unit services, processes or instruction 4. Establishment of an achievement target for each assessment measure 5. Collection and analysis of the data collected to determine major findings 6. Development and implementation of an action plan based on assessment results to improve services, processes or instruction. Each annual plan is assessed at the conclusion of the fiscal year. Data from assessment of unit programming and learning outcomes contributes to reporting on the institution s strategic plan measures of attainment and general institutional accountability measures and associated key performance indicators. Data from assessment of annual plans also informs continuous improvements to unit goals and objectives and should inform budgeting. 5
6 Assessment of Non-Instructional Units Assessment of non-instructional units occurs through the PME process, just described. Noninstructional units develop program and learning outcomes in relationship to the unit s mission, goals, and annualized objectives. Assessment instruments are designed for the unit s core outcomes, with data reported annually through the PME reporting process. Assessment data drives unit improvements and budgeting in subsequent planning. General Education Assessment The general education curriculum is designed to ensure that students graduate with the skills they need to succeed in their chosen careers. As they take their general education courses, students are exposed to methods of inquiry found in the humanities, physical and life sciences, and the social and behavioral sciences in order to equip them to think critically, read and write analytically about a broad range of topics, and appreciate cultural diversity and social interaction. Employers have told us that they value employees who understand the world in which they live and who use that knowledge to solve problems or develop new business plans for their companies. Thus, the purpose of the university s general education curriculum is to prepare students for rich, productive lives after they leave Chicago State University (CSU). In accordance with its plan for General Education Assessment, Chicago State University has conducted assessment of General Education courses since the Fall Semester of 2002. Each assessment plan, associated assessment instruments, and grading rubrics are reviewed by the respective departments and the GEAC and UAC to ensure that assessment plans and instruments are updated regularly based on assessment results and that assessment instruments are appropriate for the stated General Education Outcomes. Each department/program has a designated General Education Assessment Coordinator whose responsibility is to oversee, in consultation with the chairperson and faculty, departmental implementation of General Education Assessment. Coordinator responsibilities include organizing the development of assessment plans and instruments, coordinating the administration of assessment tests, reviewing assessment results, and presenting the review of the results to faculty meetings for discussion and decision making, writing and disseminating assessment reports, and informing the consideration of modifications/quality improvements based on assessment results. Assessment in Undergraduate, Graduate, and Certificate Programs Program-level assessment at CSU is faculty-owned and driven. Each program has an assigned and compensated faculty assessment coordinator, who works with the program director/academic chairperson and program faculty on all matters related to assessment. Program-level assessment plans incorporate at least two direct and one indirect assessments of learning. 6
7 Reports are submitted on a regular basis, and analysis of data and changes made through assessment occur in three-year cycles. Program faculties regularly discuss assessment results in department meetings and in meetings of related committees. Assessment coordinators meet collectively each semester to discuss issues of common concern and to address assessment initiatives at the institutional level. A university assessment committee is composed of key assessment stakeholders, including faculty from the colleges. CSU faculties determine assessment learning outcomes, instruments, and processes at the unit level. They consider assessment data and modify academic programs based upon trends and needed improvements. The university faculty and administration is committed to obtaining, reviewing, and acting on assessment findings to enhance student learning at the course, program, and institutional levels. In these ways, assessment at CSU is the product of faculty governance and faculty ownership of the process. Through course-embedded assessment, faculty drive the assessment process at CSU. In this regard, an essential building block of the university s assessment plan is the university Syllabus Template. The course syllabus is one of the primary means through which academic learning outcomes are expressed. Originally adopted more than a decade ago by the Faculty Senate, the template was updated in February 2011 to reflect current student learning needs. Faculty prepare syllabi that include multiple learning outcomes, required course information, and university and college specific policies, Direct assessment measures that prompt students to represent or demonstrate their learning or product include but are not limited to student portfolios; capstone projects, including senior and graduate theses; performances and creations; comprehensive examinations; standardized tests administered through a program or by an external body; case studies; and graduate program candidacy processes. Indirect assessment measures that capture student perceptions, attitudes, and experiences include but are not limited to student surveys; exit interviews; alumni surveys; and selfassessments/reflective reports Among the key processes that ensure student learning occurs and that assessment is conducted in an organized, sequential fashion are: Identification of entry and exit points such as Freshman Orientation Participation and successful completion of Senior Thesis/Project, and Master s Thesis or Dissertation. Undergraduate and Graduate Program Assessments, Trend Data Forms, and Key Changes reports in Live Text Assessment Plans and Benchmarks for all non-degree Certificate Programs Course Level General Education Assessment Accredited Colleges (College of Education, College of Pharmacy. Business, and Health 7
8 Sciences) and Programs at CSU CSU publicizes the impact of its programs on student learning through a variety of mechanisms, both for internal and external stakeholders. Academic programs utilize student publications (catalogs, brochures, and letters to majors) that state assessment expectations and their relationship to student outcomes as well as provide information on student learning and highlights of success. Deans and senior level administrators are able to make requests for budgetary resources, either re-allocations or new allocations, based upon assessment findings. University Assessment Committee The University Assessment Committee is charged with providing oversight and assistance to both academic and non-instructional units in regards to all assessment-related activities on campus. The committee is composed of faculty, administrators, and staff that are knowledgeable about the fundamental importance of assessment and the types of assessment processes that can facilitate appropriate decision-making to improve student learning, both directly and indirectly. The committee also understands the important role both instructional and non-instructional units have in improving student learning for the constituents that the university serves and works towards engaging all relevant campus entities in assessment activities. The University Assessment Committee meets monthly during the regular academic year and during the summer when necessary. UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE S MISSION: 1. Develop and facilitate assessment-related workshops for all appropriate unit / department representatives who are charged with overseeing assessment activities (e.g., assessment coordinators for the majors; general education; and non-instructional units) 2. Maximize the flow of assessment information and the use of resources while providing a forum for the discussion of assessment practices and activities. Keep the university community apprised of expectations for assessment, including expectations related to regional accreditation. 3. Assist the chair of the University Assessment Committee (i.e., the Director of Assessment) in the systematic collection of assessment-related data to improve student learning, the student university experience, and the academic programs of the university on a continual basis through self-evaluation. 4. Ensure that regular reports are provided to the university community, especially to students, about assessment activities and results. 5. Facilitate an Assessment Coordinators meeting each semester for the purpose of disseminating updated information regarding assessment planning / reporting guidelines, forms, submission processes, timelines, etc. 8
9 6. Review all submitted annual assessment reports to assist academic and non-instructional units with improving reporting content as it relates to HLC student learning-related criteria. 7. Collect and aggregate annually, all assessment plans, reports, and other related documents for the purpose of record keeping and providing documentation for future accrediting visits. 8. Participate in professional development activities, when applicable, that provide current trends in assessment (e.g., NCA /HLC sponsored events), to assist university constituents with assessment-related issues linked to improving student learning student services and accreditation. 9. Generate periodic assessment-related reports for university administrators and other constituencies that provide an overview of the level of assessment activity and decisionmaking, based on assessment results, that is taking place campus-wide. The University Assessment Committee chair acts on behalf of the committee and is spokesperson when attending administrative meetings (e.g., Provost Council and HLC Self Study Steering Committee). The chair provides information and consults with the committee prior to policy and/or programming decisions that may impact the committee s functions and responsibilities. Professional Accreditations Chicago State University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, a status it has held continuously since 1971. Many of the university s colleges and academic programs are accredited themselves. Faculty, staff, and administrators develop the institution s assessment culture through such efforts, which attach rigor and continuous quality improvement to curricula and co-curricular experiences. For additional information, please see the Accreditations webpage at: http://www.csu.edu/accreditations/accreditedprogram.htm Institutional Surveys To publicize student learning to university stakeholders, LiveText was adopted in 2008 as the university-wide electronic repository for assessment data. While some courses, programs and colleges were using LiveText as early as the last accreditation visit, primarily to store assessable items such as electronic student portfolios, the university-wide adoption in 2009 has resulted in greater efficiency and effectiveness for institution-wide collection and storage of assessment data. More importantly, centralization of the data in an electronic format facilitates greater accessibility to documentation of university, college, and program success in 9
10 accomplishing student learning. Program Review Process All programs at Chicago State University are reviewed on a cyclical basis, every five to eight years. Please see the attached schedule through 2015. Programs up for review are notified at the end of September or the beginning of October each academic year that their programs will be under review in the spring. Department Chairs of the programs under review and their Deans receive the Program Review Report Guidelines and data tables. In March of each academic year, the Program Review Committee is convened. This committee meets every week or every two weeks until all programs on the year s schedule have been reviewed. The committee then makes its recommendations. There are three possible recommendations: 1. The program is in good standing. 2. The program has been flagged for priority review. 3. The program s enrollment should be suspended. Each member of the Program Review Committee indicates which of the three recommendations she or he makes for each of the programs under review. This information is given to the Provost and President, along with the full Program Review Reports. Programs recommended for priority review may have several options. They may be asked to resubmit a report in a year or two years that demonstrates that they program has addressed identified weaknesses. They may be given a particular goal to meet for enrollment or the number of degrees conferred within a particular time frame. The options are developed in consultation with the program Chair, the Provost, and the President. Programs recommended for elimination are forwarded to the Program Elimination Committee, whose members are elected by the Faculty Senate and appointed by the Union. The Office of Academic Affairs convenes the committee and provides all available data on the program to the committee. When the Program Elimination Committee has completed its deliberations, it makes a recommendation to the Provost and President. The President, with the Board of Trustees, makes the final decision. College deans may ask that particular programs be put on the Program Review schedule. In order for a program to be put on the spring schedule, the request must be made early in the fall semester, so that the affected programs have the time to gather data on the program and to prepare their Program Review report. Deans may not eliminate programs within their colleges without going through the Program Review and Program Elimination processes, which are contractually determined. 10
11 Institutional Assessment Processes and Stakeholders University Faculty, Staff, and Administrator University Assessme nt Committee PME Facilitators Faculty administer assessment/evaluati on instruments Annual PME Reporting on Program Outcomes and Student Learning Program and General Education Assessment Reports Data Stored in LiveText Unit Personnel modify programs based on trend data Programmatic Change Decisions (based on report analysis) LiveText Online assessment management software To publicize student learning to university stakeholders, LiveText was adopted in 2008 as the university-wide electronic repository for assessment data. While some courses, programs and colleges were using LiveText, primarily to store assessable items such as electronic student portfolios, the university-wide adoption in 2009 has resulted in greater efficiency and effectiveness for institution-wide collection and storage of assessment data. More importantly, centralization of the data in an electronic format facilitates greater accessibility to documentation of university, college, and program success in accomplishing student learning. Currently, LiveText serves as the institution s repository for annual program assessment reports, accreditation reports, and semester general education reports. At one level, these reports 11
12 contain detailed discussions of the extent to which student learning outcomes in major degree and graduate programs as well as general education courses have been achieved. They present this information in terms of correlates with the university mission and goals and achievement acceptability of a given program, departmental, college/division. These reports also contain graduation and retention data and the results of alumni and employer surveys. At the program level, LiveText houses evidence for program and class-level assessments (for general education, undergraduate and graduate program assessments), annual assessment reports, annually submitted trend-data forms (that track evidence of learning and modifications/changes made as a result of assessment), reviews of reports by the University Assessment Committee, by University General Education and Assessment Coordinators, and by College Deans. Additional forms of documentation and analysis include program/unit self-assessments, Illinois Board of Higher Education program/unit reports, Illinois State Board of Education Recognition Reports and College accreditation reports such as the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for the College of Education. Other mechanisms for reporting to stakeholders include IBHE program reports and reports to program-level accrediting bodies. Key Web Resources and Contacts: University Assessment (http://www.csu.edu/assessment/assessment.htm) Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Research (http://www.csu.edu/ier/index.htm) Strategic Planning (http://www.csu.edu/strategicplanningresources/) Compiled by the University Assessment Committee, Spring 2014 Elizabeth Arnott- Hill Sarah Austin Patrice Boyles Shenise Cook Latrice Eggleston Elmer Gentry Roosevelt Martin Nelly Maynard Elizabeth Osika Devi Potluri Bernard Rowan Charlene Snelling Mark Sudeith 12