|
Appendix B State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Alabama State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Sandra Woodley, In 1994, the state Legislature established an Articulation and General Studies
Committee under the auspices of the Commission on Higher Education. The
committee was charged with developing a statewide general studies curriculum and
articulation agreement by 1998, examining the need for a uniform course
numbering system, and resolving problems in transferring credit earned at one
institution to another. The general studies curriculum has been completed and
the committee is in the implementation stage of the articulation
agreement. The
Legislature established some higher education performance measures for the first
time in the FY 2001 appropriations act that primarily concerns employee
salaries. The bill also mandated that the commission, in conjunction with the
governor and Legislature, develop a performance-based budget for at least one
university before October 1, 2000. A task force has been appointed and includes
legislative leadership and representatives from the governor’s office, the
commission and other agencies with a similar mandate, and will work to determine
appropriate performance measures to be used in the FY 2002
budget. Beyond
this initiative, there are no uniform performance measures. For a number of
years all agencies were directed by executive order to include a page on
performance measures in each annual budget request; however, this has largely
gone unheeded. There
has been some discussion about developing a statewide rising junior exam as well
as a college senior exam. Little, however, has been done toward this
end. Alaska State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Gwen Gruenig, and
Debbie Fodine, UAF Career Services Center
There
is no systematic effort; however, several disciplines within the University of
Alaska system conduct assessments as part of their program requirements. If
adequate funding becomes available from the Legislature, the University of
Alaska system will begin to address these issues. The system recognizes the
importance of assessing student learning outcomes, but does not currently have
the resources available to pursue it. Arizona State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey The
Board of Regents, covering the state’s three universities, issues an annual
report card on institutional performance in seven strategic
areas: 1) Improving
undergraduate education • Undergraduate
access to regular faculty • Satisfaction with
academic advising • Student retention
and graduation rates • Success of
university alumni • Ability to
progress in academic programs • Success of upper
division transfer students 2) Strengthening
graduate education • Nationally
recognized programs 3) Enhancing
research and economic development • Patents, licenses
and inventions • Grants and
contracts • Economic impact
on local communities • Contributions to
economic development 4) Assuring access
to public higher education • Development of
distance education programs • Success of
transfer students 5) Capitalizing on
new technologies • Students served
by online courses and other alternative modes of delivery 6) Strengthening
relationships with governmental, educational and constituent groups through the
distribution of the annual report card 7) Improving
efficiency • Privatization
efforts • Teaching load
proportion of state funds used for instruction • Administrative
efficiency For
the report card, the universities complete a self-assessment for each
performance indicator. The self-assessments are reviewed by the Regents in an
effort to measure value, assess trends and establish benchmarks for ongoing
improvement. The indicators establish a baseline against which future
performance will be measured and reported. The
community colleges do not collect assessment data at the system
level. Arkansas State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Steve Floyd, In
1994, the Legislature mandated that all baccalaureate degree-seeking students
take a Junior Rising Exam using the ACT CAAP when they accumulated between 45
and 60 credit hours, in order to assess their general education skills.
Institutions received funding when they demonstrated success in teaching courses
in the State Minimum Core (as evidenced by student test scores). In 1997, the Legislature discontinued
performance-based funding as a consideration for institutional budget
allocations. To date, however, the CAAP exam is still required of all rising
juniors. Institutions
still assess their students using the ACT exam, although the incentive has
changed from funding to demonstrating accountability to the Legislature.
However, the state still underwrites the cost of having ACT train institutions
in how to use the CAAP data. The
Department of
Higher Education uses the data they do get
for noting trends among state institutions and for national comparisons.
Presently the department is re-evaluating its general education core assessment
program and is debating whether there is a need for mandated statewide
assessment. California State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview with Warren Fox, In
1991, the Legislature passed and the governor signed a bill directing the
Postsecondary Education Commission to develop an annual report that provides
information to the public on significant indicators of performance of
California’s colleges and universities. Since then, the commission has produced
these reports on an annual basis. The
following indicators are included in the report: 1) population context;
2) fiscal context; 3) student preparation for college; 4) student
access to college; and 5) student experiences. The Commission continues to
try to improve the information on student outcomes that are reported; however,
some efforts have been hampered by lack of data, lack of comparability of the
data between the college and university systems, and by other
factors. In
addition, the legislation required that the Chancellor’s Office of the
California Community Colleges produce an annual report on the effectiveness of
the California Community Colleges on sixty performance measures in the following
five accountability areas: 1) student access; 2) student success;
3) staff composition; 4) fiscal conditions; and 5) student
satisfaction. The community colleges also receive funds from the Partnership for
Excellence program that is designed to provide support to the colleges in
exchange for specific student and institutional performance
outcomes. A
funding agreement also was reached with the California State University (Cal
State) and University of California (UC) systems. This four-year partnership
ensures funding to these systems in return for the systems meeting specific
outcomes. For Cal State this includes: 1) improving access and the
transition from high schools to colleges; 2) improving transfer and
articulation; 3) improving institutional productivity and efficiency; and
4) improving the academic experience. The outcomes developed for the UC
system comprise: 1) commitment to improving access to quality undergraduate
education; 2) improving integration and coordination within California’s
educational system; 3) meeting teacher demand and improving the quality of
teacher preparation; 4) productivity improvements; 5) regional
cooperation and efficient use of existing campuses and facilities;
6) maintaining California’s competitiveness; and 7) improving the
academic experience. While
California does not have a state-mandated assessment program, each of its public
institutions has some form of assessment activities: University
of California:
Entering students are assessed to determine their writing proficiency. If they
fail the English writing examination, they must enroll in an introductory
English course. California
State University:
Entering students are assessed to determine if they possess proficiency in
writing and mathematics. If they fail to score high enough on these
examinations, they must enroll in introductory courses. These courses typically
do not award degree credit. For California residents, results of those
examinations are fed back to the high school from which the student graduated.
In addition, upper-division students also are assessed to determine that their
writing skills are adequate for college graduation. Students cannot graduate
from the Cal State University until they have passed this upper-division writing
test or have earned a passing grade in an upper-division writing
course. California
Community Colleges:
Through the community college “matriculation program,” all new students who do
not yet possess a college degree are required to take a series of tests to
determine their proficiency in reading, writing and math. Based on the results
of those tests, students are provided with information regarding which courses
would be most suitable for them. However, such counseling is advisory only, as
students can enroll in any course offered by the community
college. With
the current national attention on teacher quality, the governor seems to be
moving toward outcomes assessment for the UC and Cal State
systems. Colorado State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Ray Kieft, In
1986, the Legislature required institutions to develop accountability processes
to assess what students learned between entrance and graduation. Institutions
could lose up to two percent of their funding if they did not comply. The
Commission on Higher Education directed each institution to develop its own
initiative based on its mission. In
1996, the Legislature passed a new accountability initiative, calling for a
comprehensive, comparative Quality Indicator System (QIS) which would eventually
be linked to funding. In 1999, the legislation was amended to include new
outcomes measures, and required explicit benchmarks of performance for all
previously established quality indicators. The amendment also called for “the
assessment of competency in functional skills and basic literacy” for all
sophomores as well as using a nationally normed standardized exam for all public
institution graduates. Additionally, in 1999 the commission required that all
institutions submit a graduation year assessment plan by fall 2000 for measuring
skills and knowledge in the major. The commission also is requiring that
institutions either use ETS’ Major Field Exams or justify why they are not doing
so. The
QIS currently contains 29 discrete items similar to other state-level quality
initiatives, including graduation rates, pass rates on licensure exams, grade
point average of transfer students, student satisfaction surveys, faculty
workload, access to lower-division courses, etc. There are also items consisting
of “yes/no” stipulations, attested to by the institution’s president, such as
implementing and evaluating a student advising system with guidelines
established by the Colorado Student Association. Performance funding was linked
to the QIS in 1999-2000. Given the complexity of some of these indicators, only
nine were used in 1999-2000 for performance funding
purposes. The
commission selected ETS’ Academic Profile (AP) as a potential sophomore exam.
The instrument was piloted at 14 institutions, representing the range of
institutions across the state, in spring 1999. The commission will decide
whether the results warrant using the AP as a sophomore
exam. By
2001-2002 the commission plans to use the results of the sophomore and senior
assessment in performance funding. Connecticut State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Jan Lyddon, At
the recommendation of the Board of Governors for Higher Education, the
Legislature identified six goals for public higher education. In developing the
measures to assess these goals, the Department of Higher Education considered
graduation rates, student retention rates, tuition and fees, student financial
aid need and available aid, trends in enrollment, strategic plans, degrees
conferred by program, faculty productivity, and any other factors it deemed
relevant. The department made several recommendations to implement and support
performance improvement: • Create a
performance incentive pool for implementation that provides incentive funds to
institutions based on progress in demonstrating and meeting performance
goals. • Refocus the
biennial budget request to emphasize performance
improvement. • Link the review
of accountability reports with the budgeting process. • Eliminate
statutory biennial assessment report requirement and replace it with annual
accountability measurement reports. Even
before the Legislature identified the higher education goals, the Department of
Higher Education created a Performance Measures Task Force, which developed
performance indicators and proposed definitions. A major challenge has been to
ensure as much consistency and similarity as possible, while still allowing each
unit to showcase its important distinctions and priorities. The following are
some of the student learning outcome areas identified by the Task
Force: • UConn:
proportion of graduating students completing university requirements for
demonstrating written and communication and quantitative analysis
skills. • UConn Health
Center: performance on National and State Boards. • Conn State
U: 1) percent of graduates demonstrating in-depth understanding of an
area of knowledge; 2) percent of graduates demonstrating competence in
critical/analytical/logical thinking, effective writing, effective
communication, use of scientific and quantitative skills, and life-long
learning. •
Community/Technical Colleges: 1) upon completion of general
education, students will demonstrate reading, writing and oral communication
skills, an understanding of artistic and literary expression, the ability to
locate, analyze, synthesize and express ideas logically, and an understanding of
social issues; 2) percent of graduates demonstrating in-depth understanding
of an area of knowledge. • Charter Oak
State: employers rate graduates on preparedness and performance in specific
skills and knowledge areas, and indicate if additional skills are
needed. • System:
percent of employers satisfied or very satisfied with overall system of higher
education. The
Task Force currently is developing instruments, identifying potential data
sources, and creating timelines for assessment activities. The CEOs of Connecticut’s public higher education
institutions are continuing to work on developing other measures of student
learning outcomes over the next two years. Delaware State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Marilyn Quinn, Interview
with Linda Waltz, The
Higher Education Commission has no authority over institutions to collect these
types of data, and the little data they do have is of very poor quality. They
are talking about hiring a data person to develop a good
database. The
community college system is currently working on an assessment
model. Florida State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with David Wright, A
1982 state law requires that all students in public institutions demonstrate
college-level skills in order to receive an associate of arts degree or
admission to upper-division status in a state university. The College Level
Academic Skills Test (CLAST) comprises four tests, in reading, writing, math and
English language skills. There are three regular administrations annually—in
February, June and October. The
passing scores for each subtest of the CLAST are established by the State Board
of Education through administrative rule. A student must satisfy the CLAST
requirement in order to receive an Associate of Arts degree or admission to
upper-division status in a state university. Prior to January 1, 1996, the
CLAST testing program was the only procedure used by the state of Florida to
assess students’ achievement of the required skills. The 1997 Legislature
modified Section 240.107, F.S., to permit students to demonstrate achievement of
college-level skills via alternate methods. Rule 6A-10.0311, Florida
Administrative Code, lists the standardized test scores or the grade point
average in specified courses required for alternatives to
CLAST. In
1991 the Legislature passed a law stipulating that the community colleges’
accountability process must address measures of student performance, including
acquisition of college-level academic skills. However, the accountability
process carries no direct penalty or reward, but the statute states that
“district boards of trustees shall address within the annual evaluation of
presidents the achievement of the performance goals established by the
accountability process.” The perceived lack of accountability contributed to the
state initiating performance funding in 1994. However, the introduction of
alternative methods of satisfying CLAST rendered unlikely the inclusion of CLAST
pass rates as a performance funding measure. Georgia State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Robert Haney, In
1989 the Board of Regents approved a “Planning and Assessment” policy statement
that required every institution in the University System to provide a summary of
significant assessment results and associated improvement objectives along with
action plans by which improvement in effectiveness will be achieved. In
addition, board policy directs each institution to describe the process by which
systematic assessment of institutional effectiveness is conducted, and the
results are used to achieve institutional improvement. The policy also mandates
that each institution link its major budget allocations and other major academic
and administrative decisions to its assessment process. The
policy permits assessment procedures to differ from institution to institution,
as long as each program includes the assessment of: basic academic skills at
entry, general education, specific academic program areas, and all academic and
administrative support programs. The formal board policy is supplemented by a
set of assessment “Resource Manuals,” which provide structure for a standard
assessment model, but also provide a great deal of institutional flexibility in
actual implementation. Institutions’ outcomes are reviewed every couple of
years, and institutions are encouraged to revamp them as necessary. Learning
outcomes will be a major part of the new program review process, which is
expected to take effect in fall 2001. A
Board of Regents administrative committee on institutional effectiveness (IE)
coordinates institutional effectiveness efforts and provides training toward
this end. It also develops and approves effectiveness policies such as program
review. When the system (comprising 34 institutions) converted to semesters
recently, institutions were required to revamp their general education
curriculum based on student learning outcomes, and are “actively encouraged to
collect these data.” While the learning outcomes are individual to each
institution, the committee has recently endorsed common general education
learning outcomes that emerged from analyzing the 34 institutions’ outcomes.
Consistent with the decentralized nature of the assessment process in the
University System, assessment methods are selected or developed and implemented
by the faculty, as appropriate to the particular academic program being
assessed. The IE committee facilitates the development of valid and reliable
instruments. A
committee is developing an “E-Core” that will facilitate general education
transfer among institutions. Beginning fall 2000, E-core will be treated as
“native” credit. Under-prepared
students entering the University System are assessed through the Collegiate
Placement Exam (CPE) or the COMPASS exam to determine their readiness to do
college work. There
is also the Regents’ Testing Program (RTP) that all sophomores enrolled in a
baccalaureate or associate program must pass in order to earn their degree. The
RTP was instituted in all system institutions to provide systemwide information
on the status of student competence in the areas of reading and writing, and a
uniform means of identifying those students who fail to attain the minimum
levels of competence in those areas. Passing the test became a requirement for
graduation from undergraduate degree programs (associate and baccalaureate) in
1973. In 1987 the RTP policy was changed to exempt students earning career
associate degrees. The test consists of two parts, reading and essay, and is
administered each semester at all system institutions. The reading part of the
test is a 60-item, multiple choice test based on ten reading passages with five
to eight questions about each passage. The questions are designed to assess
vocabulary, comprehension and analysis skills. As a
part of general education reform in Georgia, the governor created an Office of
Educational Accountability which encompasses K–16. It is still unclear what the
relationship between this office and the IE committee or the higher education
system in general will be, but efforts will initially focus on
K–12. Hawaii State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Colleen Sathre, In
1996 the Legislature revised current statutes requiring the Board of Regents to
expand and develop the University of Hawaii to become a statewide campus that
provides Hawaii with a public higher education system. It further required the
university to seek ways to measure and demonstrate the effectiveness of its
programs and services, not only for accountability purposes, but also to inform
improvement efforts. In
response to this legislation, the Board of Regents devised policies that
identified the purpose, guidance, commitment and policy base for institutional
accountability and educational assessment processes for the regular and
systematic assessment of programs, campuses and the University of Hawaii system.
This policy also emphasizes that the University has purposely decentralized
assessment activities. An important objective of this policy is to demonstrate
how assessment outcomes are used to: 1) take regular readings across the
system on how well the university is doing, and 2) guide educational
decision-making, improve programs/services, further accountability, and
demonstrate institutional quality and responsiveness. Various departments and
programs use ETS’ Major Field exam for program improvement. In addition, the
system does keep track of licensure pass rates for external exams such as the
National Council for Licensing Examinations in nursing (NCLEX) or the Praxis
Teacher Certification Exams. Each
campus reports assessment information in accordance with the following
guidelines: a. All reports emphasize the
difference that assessment activities make by describing impacts on, among other
things: student learning, curriculum/program change, delivery of student
services, etc. b. Assessment
information that is collected by instructional departments and programs is
reported as part of the program review process. c.
Assessment/performance information is reported in accordance with the
accreditation requirements of the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges. d. Baccalaureate
campuses are encouraged to report on performance of UH Community College
transfer students in upper division course work. Some
examples of assessment activities concerning student learning include:
1) surveys of employers or potential employers to evaluate graduates’
preparation; 2) self-studies required for professional accreditation
provide data for program improvement; 3) evaluation and monitoring of field
placements, internships and practica where relevant; and 4) longitudinal
tracking of undergraduate enrollments, course-taking, and performance occurs
within program areas. The
university is in transition, simultaneously conducting both a presidential
search and separating the president and Manoa chancellor functions. It is not
clear whether these changes will impact state-level assessment of student
learning outcomes, although the general feeling is that the system will continue
to take a decentralized approach to assessment. Idaho State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Jerry Engstrom, The
Board of Education currently is working on a student unit record system which
might contain some of these data at some point. Some institutions provide
student scores on first-year English and math exams. Illinois State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Neala Schleuning and David Smith, In
July 1998, the Board of Higher Education began discussions about an agenda for
higher education for the coming decade. It was called the “Citizen’s Agenda”
because of its focus on the needs of the state’s students and employers, and on
the well-being of Illinois residents. In February 1999, the board adopted a
version of the Agenda entitled “The Illinois Commitment: Partnerships,
Opportunities and Excellence.” The Commitment’s six goals include holding
college students to higher expectations for learning, and holding Illinois
colleges and universities accountable for the quality of academic programs and
the assessment of learning. Specifically,
institutions will be required to: • Systematically
assess student learning and use assessment results to improve programs by
2004. • Annually increase
the pass rates of Illinois students on nationally standardized tests and
licensure exams. • Annually increase
the placement of graduates in careers appropriate to their education and
training. • Increase
employers’ satisfaction with the job preparation of
graduates. There
is, however, no mechanism in place yet to assess college student learning
outcomes on a statewide basis. There are two processes in place for assessing
program learning outcomes: 1) program approval, and 2) program review
(which will incorporate outcomes and assessment data). There
are some efforts underway to align standards and assessment of learning outcomes
in teacher preparation. The state Board of Education is developing an instrument
to assess general education learning outcomes that will be administered to
applicants for teacher preparation programs and applicants for teacher
certification. The instrument will be customized to state K–12 learning
standards and the Illinois Articulation Agreement common general education
core. Two
information systems, the Shared Enrollment and Graduation System and the
Baccalaureate Follow-up System, allow monitoring of statewide progress toward
broad objectives for undergraduate education. The primary assessment activities
take place on campuses where processes and techniques are selected and
developed. Indiana State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Jeff Weber, Indiana
has no state-level student assessment program. Postsecondary institutions are
responsible for student learning. The Commission for Higher Education is a
coordinating body with no authority, barring legislative action, over
postsecondary assessment. Some institutions have initiated assessment
activities, but none are comprehensive. Some examples
include: 1) Ivy Technical State College uses
ACT’s ASSET assessment for student intake and placement
purposes. 2) Vincennes
University has introduced course-based performance assessment for some courses
and programs 3) Ball State University assesses
writing for all students. 4) Indiana
University at Bloomington has explored using performance assessment of general
education and is currently using the National Survey of Student Engagement to
gauge undergraduates’ educational experiences that are linked with good
undergraduate educational practices. There
are some statewide activities that may increase interest in assessing college
student learning: • K–12 assessment is moving the
original Indiana Statewide Test of Educational Progress toward a
performance-based assessment. In the near future, K–12 assessment will include a
norm-referenced, multiple choice component and a writing
component. • A jointly adopted Board of
Education and Commission for Higher Education plan for improving the fit between
high school and college. In 1994 a specified high school core curriculum for all
students (“Indiana Core 40”) was implemented, which required developing
course-specific competencies in core subject areas. Identifying these
competencies has engaged college faculty along with high school teachers in team
efforts. • Department of
Workforce Development initiatives related to technical preparation and to
assessing competencies acquired by students taking occupational programs
(similar to the Oregon model). • A state-level pilot project
(Indiana Performance Assessment) organized by the commission and funded from
non-state sources. The project developed ten experimental language arts and
mathematics assessments that were administered to high school and college
students and also to adults seeking admission to Ivy Tech State College. The
project resulted in a major assessment initiative within the College of Arts and
Sciences at IUB. Iowa State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Robert Barak, In
1991 the Board of Regents required every institution under it to assess outcomes
for every program. The primary purpose is to improve student learning, teaching,
and to provide an outcomes assessment component to ongoing program review
efforts. Assessment varies by institution and program, with faculty taking the
lead in identifying assessments and selecting or developing instruments. The
goal of the assessments is to improve teaching and learning, and every program
reports annually on its assessment methods, procedures and
results. Kansas State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Kathy Rupp, The
Board of Regents has been the primary initiator of assessment in the state, but
institutions develop their own assessment programs, and each program must assess
basic skills, general education and student learning in the major. Since 1998,
the Council of Chief Academic Officers and the Council of Faculty Senate
presidents have led efforts to improve assessing the major. There is no
statewide mandate requiring uniform testing and data collection on student
learning outcomes. All
public colleges and universities have created their own assessment plans based
on institutional role and mission, which were approved by the board in 1989. The
plans must create and identify expectations for baccalaureate degree students in
three areas: basic skills, general education and the major field of study. These
plans must also indicate how student attainment of these expectations will be
assessed and used to improve programs. Assessment results are reported to the
board, annually for basic skills and general education, and once every three
years for the major. The
board is in the process of building a student record database, and is working on
getting basic data; however, incorporating learning outcomes into it is not on
the immediate horizon. Kentucky State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Connie Shumake, During
the 1990s, Kentucky legislators mandated the development of accountability
indicators to be measured through a collaborative effort between the Kentucky
Council on Higher Education and the public institutions of higher education.
Additionally, an objective of the Strategic Plan for Kentucky Higher Education
1996-2000 requires institutional programs to “identify and evaluate
students’ educational outcomes relative to program priorities within
institutional missions.” The
Kentucky Postsecondary Education
Improvement Act of 1997 directs the council to develop a strategic agenda, a
plan to implement that agenda, financial incentives and funding policies that
support the plan’s accomplishment, and indicators and benchmarks for measuring
progress. In July 1998, the council approved 2020 Vision: An Agenda for Kentucky’s System
of Postsecondary Education. The more detailed Action Agenda: 1999-2004 was implemented
in September 1999. And in April 2000, the General Assembly approved allocation
of funds to the system, its universities, and the Kentucky Community and
Technical College System, based on the new benchmark funding guidelines and
incentive trust fund proposals approved by the council in November
1999. These
plans and funding policies create the foundation for developing a short list of
key indicators for measuring progress toward the reforms outlined above. These
key indicators should answer the following five questions: 1) Are more Kentuckians ready for
college? 2) Are more students
enrolling? 3) Are students advancing through the
system? 4) Are we preparing Kentuckians for
life and work? 5) Is Kentucky’s economy
benefiting? For
each of these questions, the council staff propose three to five specific,
measurable indicators, each with its own goals and timeline. Some of these goals
will be statewide, institution-specific; others are systemwide goals. The
indicators associated with question four will include foundational skills,
alumni satisfaction, civic engagement, preparation of teachers, and
undergraduate student experience. The
Council is working on identifying a methodology and appropriate instruments to
use in assessing student learning outcomes, and is in the process of developing
key indicators. Louisiana State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Jimmy Clarke at the In
1984 the Board of Regents established a Statewide Task Force on General
Education comprising representatives from all public and several private
colleges and universities. In 1985, an out-of-state Review committee on
Undergraduate General Education reviewed the report and strongly urged the board
“…to adopt a statement of purpose for general education in undergraduate
programs of the public colleges and universities” which emphasizes the following
goals for student achievement: • Communicating
effectively in oral and written English. • Reading with
comprehension. • Reasoning
abstractly and thinking critically. • Understanding
numerical data and statistics. • Familiarity with
key technological applications of the basic sciences. • Learning
independently. • Recognizing and
appreciating cultural diversity. • Understanding the
nature and value of fine and performing arts. • Developing a
personal value system while retaining tolerance for the values of
others. • Understanding the
American political and economic system. Several
colleges and universities have already adopted institution-wide requirements as
a first step to achieving these goals. The
Board also developed curricular “requirements” and “suggestions” for English,
mathematics, humanities, natural sciences, social sciences and the arts.
Requirements are essential first steps and are mandatory for all baccalaureate
programs at each public college and university. Requirements in mathematics and
English are also mandatory for all associate programs. Suggestions are
additional steps that should be taken to fully achieve the goals of general
education but are not mandatory. The requirements generally focus on the number
of credit hours to be taken in each discipline. The board, however, recognized
that requiring additional courses alone would not produce the desired goals. As
a result, the board urged each institution to review the required and suggested
courses in order to determine whether existing courses need to be restructured
or replaced. The
board also explicitly recognized the need to assess these goals by adopting the
following language: “…each public college and university in Louisiana shall
employ appropriate testing procedures to measure the effectiveness of its
general education program. Recognizing the diverse missions of colleges and
universities, and the lack of consensus regarding the best testing procedure,
the Board of Regents leaves to each management board and campus the
determination of what are the ‘appropriate testing procedures.’” However, many
institutions use the ACT CAAP exam data as measures of general education
outcomes (although not all do). The
board is in the process of refining performance-based budgeting because the
Legislature is seriously considering learning outcome results. This will not
happen, however, until there is a revised master plan, in which learning
outcomes will be prominent. However, institutions that use the student
satisfaction survey receive $8,000 for their
participation. Maine State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with James Breece, Interim Vice Chancellor, The
University of Maine System does not presently collect system-level (or
state-level) data on student learning outcomes. The Chief Academic Officers of
the seven institutions of the University of Maine System meet regularly, and
discuss learning outcomes assessment activities at the individual campuses. It
is generally felt that the most effective assessment of student learning is
developed and supported by faculty at the individual campuses and viewed by
faculty as a means to improve the teaching and learning process. Reports on
assessment activities are made periodically to the University System Board of
Trustees. No
single instrument is used systemwide. Each campus has a unique mission;
therefore, the assessment methods selected by each campus reflect its individual
purpose and focus. As campuses continue working to clearly define learning
outcomes, the assessment activities attached to these curricular objectives will
also continue to evolve and be refined. Examples of assessment techniques used
at the campuses include student portfolios, capstone examinations in the major,
surveys of students and alumni, and performance-based gateway examinations for
students in teacher preparation programs. Students
in teacher preparation programs are measured by their performance on gateway
examinations prior to successful completion of the program. In April 2001,
institutions will be required to report the numbers of program completion
students to the federal government, under regulations of the Higher Education
Act Amendments of 1998, Title II. Maryland State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Monica Randall, The
1988 Higher Education Reorganization Act established an accountability process
for public colleges and universities which requires that each public institution
submit a student assessment plan and annual progress reports. The goal of
assessment is to encourage public colleges and universities to improve student
learning, instructional effectiveness and curriculum. In 1991, the Higher
Education Commission required two- and four-year institutions to develop plans
to assess undergraduate student learning outcomes. A new accountability system
adopted by the commission in 1996 gave the governing boards of the public
campuses primary responsibility for monitoring student learning outcomes,
although the commission retained the option of seeking progress reports on this
subject. In approving the new process, the commission requested that the
secretary of higher education work with the heads of the public institutions to
develop a formal reporting schedule for submitting these status reports. The
public campuses agreed to report to the commission on their progress in
improving student learning, instructional effectiveness and curriculum, every
three years, beginning in 1998. The
secretary invited the public institutions to name representatives to an ad hoc
committee to work with commission staff in establishing a common format for the
reports. Reporting guidelines were developed and approved by the commission in
October 1997. A representative group of faculty who teach freshman writing
courses at Maryland’s public two- and four-year institutions formulated a
“statement of expectations” regarding English composition. This statement was
developed in response to the commission’s guidelines for statewide general
education. There are plans to make the statement consistent with the high school
core learning goals in English being developed by the Department of Education.
In another section of the report, institutions are encouraged to focus in depth
on one particular assessment activity—evaluating writing competencies. Other
competencies, notably math and quantitative skills, will be added to future
reports. The
commission reviews institutional reports to determine whether assessment
findings resulted in actions designed to enhance the instructional process, and
reports to the General Assembly on the progress institutions are making toward
improving student learning outcomes. The commission issues reporting guidelines
annually for the student assessment reports. To enhance reliability, the
guidelines have remained relatively consistent each year. Institutions must
report on the following eight common indicators: • Effectiveness of
general education programs. • Student retention
and graduation rates for all campuses, and transfer patterns for community
colleges. • Student
evaluation of teaching. • Admission of
undergraduates to post-baccalaureate study. • Academic
performance of community college students in baccalaureate
programs. • Student
performance of licensing, certification and graduate admission
exams. • Employment rates
of graduates. • Graduates’
perceptions about the quality of their educational
experience. Campuses
are required to examine trend data based on these and optional
institution-specific indicators, and are required to explain their significance
to the enhancement of student learning outcomes, particularly in relation to the
institution’s mission. The campuses also are asked to discuss the impact of the
findings on institutional policies, services and educational practices related
to student learning outcomes, including: 1) course content and
prerequisites, 2) teaching methods, 3) entrance requirements, and
4) student services. Massachusetts State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Soon Merz and Aundrea Kelley, Board of Higher
Education The
Board of Higher Education collects student unit record data on the courses
students enroll in each fall semester, and admissions information (for four-year
institutions only) such as high school grade point average, ACT/SAT, ACUPLACER
data on reading and math placement scores. There is also a writing assessment
that is scored by institutional faculty. The board created a task force to
explore an exit assessment that would be administered across the
system. The
board uses the unit record data to monitor the degree to which institutions are
following board policy. For example, the board just raised admission standards
and will use the ACT/SAT data and placement results to determine how closely
institutions are following this policy. These data also are being collected as a
part of the performance measurement system mandated by the
Legislature. The
board also has a Performance Improvement Program, which provides incentive
funding to promote its priorities. These include enhancing academic programs of
strength through technology, improving student retention, and promoting
collaborative projects between campuses, especially through distance learning.
The program was funded through the General Appropriations Act for the fiscal
year 1998 and is in its second year; thirty-two institutions were funded overall
for $6 million. Michigan State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Rhonda Burke, Four-year
institutions conduct their own assessment activities. The
community college system is considering an assessment system based on ten
performance indicators: • Licensure,
certification and registry exam pass rates. •
Degree/certificate completion rates. • Transfer student
performance (compare transfer and native students grade point
averages). • Student goal
attainment (student reports that primary goal in attending institution has been
met at time of leaving). • Placement and
wage rates (placement in field directly related to training and median
wage). • Student
satisfaction (sample of currently enrolled and former students indicating that
the quality of programs and services met their needs). • Business and
industry satisfaction (sample of businesses that are satisfied with the employee
training they have received). • Employer
satisfaction (sample of employers who indicate that graduates exhibit skills and
job performance equivalent or superior to all employees). • Community
satisfaction (sample of residents who indicate that college’s service to the
public meets or exceeds expectations). • NCA
accreditation. These
performance indicators will not be linked to any incentive or performance
funding. Minnesota State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Craig Shoenecker, In
1987 the Legislature and the Higher Education Coordinating Board established a
Task Force on Postsecondary Quality Assessment. The task force was directed to
study the objectives of assessment and how it can be used to improve
postsecondary education as well as piloting an assessment program within each of
the public postsecondary systems in the state. Six pilot programs were funded,
and the task force was reauthorized through
June 1991. Since
1991 there has not been a statewide assessment of student learning. In that
year, sweeping governance changes occurred that required the merger of the
technical college, community college and state university systems into the
Minnesota State College and University System by July 1995. Assessment of
student learning is left to individual campuses. In
1995, performance measures were legislated including: 1) retention, transfer,
graduation rates; 2) job placement; 3) minority student enrollment and
retention; and 4) increased credits generated by technology-mediated courses.
However, measures of student learning were not established for either the MNSCU
system or the University of Minnesota. Mississippi State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Milton Baxter, Interview
with Larry Day, The
Board of Trustees established the following five-year goals for the
system: • To resolve the Ayers
case. • To provide high quality
instructional programs that are affordable, accessible and student
centered. • To support programs and
services that enhance student recruiting and retention, timely completion of
degrees, and attainment of student goals. • To encourage research and
creative activities to enhance instruction, generate new knowledge, and
contribute to economic development. • To provide informal
education, technical assistance and other public services that respond to
societal needs. • To promote accountability,
efficiency, productivity and effective utilization of
technology. • To promote ethnic and gender
diversity. • To enhance programs and
utilization of resources by developing cooperative efforts and
partnerships. • To enhance public awareness
and support of Institutions of Higher Learning programs and
services. Strategies
used to meet these system goals are set by the individual universities in order
to respect each institution’s distinctive mission. The university system
collects grade point average as well as retention and graduation data.
Individual campuses assess student learning outcomes. The
Community College Board does not collect system-level student learning outcomes
data, but individual institutions conduct such
assessments. Missouri State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Interview
with Robert Stein, Coordinating Board of Higher
Education Since
the mid-1980s Missouri has been actively involved in state-level perspectives on
assessment. In 1986, state educational leaders, with support from the governor,
challenged all public institutions to establish assessment programs with the
goal of improving student academic performance. More
recently, with help from a grant awarded by the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), the Coordinating Board of Higher Education has
refined and expanded its performance funding program to emphasize the importance
of teaching and learning issues. Missouri’s performance funding program rewards
institutions at two levels: 1) the extent to which institutions achieve
statewide goals such as enhanced performance in general education and the major;
and 2) rewarding institutions for designing and implementing
mission-specific campus-level performance funding that is data-driven and
emphasizes improvements in teaching and learning. Missouri’s
assessment initiative, while mandating assessment at the state level, was not
legislated. Consistent with its tradition of local autonomy, Missouri has a
decentralized approach that requires institutions to develop programs tailored
to institutional missions, but does not mandate specific instruments or
measurements. The one exception is a state-mandated teacher education admissions
exam (CBASE) that was developed locally. Teacher education graduates must also
take the Praxis exam prior to obtaining their certification. On both exams, the
board’s minimum score is higher than what the state requires. The board does
collect locally administered assessment data, and reports the percentage of
students taking nationally normed exams. As
demands for accountability increased, new goals for higher education, including
student outcomes, were adopted. Consequently, the board developed general
education “goals” and “competencies” in the following “skills
areas:” 1) Communicating
Goal, Suggested Competencies:
Analyze and evaluate their own and others’ speaking and writing (there are seven
other competency areas). 2) Higher Order
Thinking Goal, Suggested
Competencies: Recognize the problematic elements of presentations of
information and argument, and formulate diagnostic questions for resolving
issues and solving problems (there are four other
competencies). 3) Managing
Information Goal, Suggested competencies: Access and/or generate
information from a variety of sources, including the most contemporary
technological information services. 4) Valuing
Goal, Suggested competencies: Compare and contrast
historical and cultural ethical perspectives and belief systems (plus four other
competencies). 5) Knowledge
Areas Goal, Suggested
competencies: Explain social institutions, structures, processes across a
range of historical periods and cultures (plus five others); describe the scope
and variety of works in the humanities and fine arts (plus four others);
describe contributions to society from the discipline of mathematics (plus four
others); and explain how to use the scientific method and how to develop and
test hypotheses in order to draw defensible conclusions (plus four
others). Institutions
are required to align their general education with state goals and competencies,
but are free to develop their own instruments. Institutions are required to
develop an assessment plan within the next two years and open it to statewide
comment and critique by posting it on their Web site and on the board’s Web
site. Montana State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Bob Vogel, The
postsecondary institutions in Montana are developing assessment programs in
response to the standards established by the Northwest Association of Schools
and Colleges. Each institution is developing a program consistent with its
mission. Montana has no statewide mandate regarding postsecondary
assessment. The
commission is currently setting up a systemwide database which may allow them to
track assessment in Phase Two of the process. Nebraska State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Kathleen Fimple, There
is no statewide mandate for student learning assessment, although institutions
accredited by North Central Association of Schools and Colleges must develop
outcomes assessment plans, and are in the process of implementing these plans.
The Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education is a coordinating,
rather than a governing, body, and its role is to ensure that institutions’
governing boards are maintaining academic quality. One way they do this is
through program review, which is conducted on a seven-year cycle for existing
programs. Institutions have been asked, but not required, to address student
learning in their program review submissions. Recent
legislation has further restricted the Commission’s scope of activity regarding
student learning assessment activities. Nevada State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Sherwin Iverson, Board of Regents University
and Community College System of Nevada The
Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada
adopted an assessment policy in 1989 requiring each campus to develop a plan of
regular student assessment. Each campus assumes responsibility for developing
the assessment processes and procedures to be used, based on their mission, and
must utilize multiple assessment approaches. The policy also directs that plans
must reflect the mix of programs and types of students at each school. While
assessment approaches vary by institution, where appropriate, the universities
and community colleges are required to work together to develop common
approaches. Each
campus has adopted a schedule of regular activities, including a variety of
surveys and interviews which are conducted with current students, graduates,
faculty, employers, community members and others. Institutions have developed a
variety of survey instruments in an attempt to link classroom instruction and
learning with the various assessment methods. Longitudinal studies and exams of
student learning are used to assess the core curriculum, while assessments of
the major use test scores, interviews and focus groups. Results
of college placement, graduate admission tests, and state and national licensure
examinations also are used to provide feedback regarding instructional programs,
college services and employer satisfaction. After
initially reporting on campus assessment efforts in 1990, the campus presidents
report biennially on the results of their institution’s assessment activities.
All institutions also address assessment and student learning outcomes during
their regular accreditation self-study reports and site
visits. The
results of the academic program review process, which is undertaken by each
campus and reported to the board annually, are utilized to improve and enhance
programs. New
Hampshire State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Paula Hollis at the Interview
with Marie Mills at the Department of Community and Technical College
System The
Commission collects only graduation rates. The
community and technical college system assesses students’ English and math
skills when they are admitted, in order to place them in appropriate
courses. New
Jersey State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Philip Beardsley, New
Jersey no longer has a state-level collegiate assessment program. The previously
operational state-level Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP) and the College
Outcomes Evaluation Program (COEP), both of which used common assessment
instruments, no longer exist. State-level coordination of the higher education
system has been restructured and the Board and Department of Higher Education
(which administered BSAP and COEP) have been replaced by the Commission on
Higher Education and the Presidents’ Council. However, individual institutions
continue their basic skills assessment with a variety of
tests. Institutions
are required to report on indicators in four areas: 1) Systemwide
characteristics (students, certificates/degrees, and
faculty). 2) Student outcomes
(graduation/retention/transfer rates). 3) Fiscal indicators
(research funding, tuition and fees, state/local government support, costs and
revenue, and student assistance programs). 4) Extent of student
assistance (median amount of assistance by sector, and range within each
sector). The
state has performance funding which allocates institutions up to one percent of
their annual budget based on their performance on indicators listed above. There
is some discussion of including an indicator on
assessment. New
Mexico State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Frank Renz, Community Colleges Interview
with Liz Jenkins, A
1990 law required the Commission on Higher Education to submit an annual report
card to the governor and Legislature, highlighting each institution’s learning
assessment programs and steps taken to improve learner outcomes. In 1999 the
report card law was repealed and replaced with an annual accountability report
and focuses on the following areas: 1) student access and diversity;
2) student progress and success; 3) affordability and cost of
educational services; and 4) public and community services. The commission
is currently in the process of developing consistent indicators. In the same
year, the Legislature also adopted a list of Higher Education Goals which the
Commission incorporated into its policies. Finally, an Accountability in
Government Act was passed linking performance of all institutions in the public
sector (e.g., department of transportation, the courts, postsecondary education
institutions, etc.) with annual appropriations. The goal is to develop
consistent indicators that are linked to each line in the budget and which apply
across all public sectors. The
four-year institutions administered an employer survey last year and are in
their third year of developing standardized indicators. They also are devising
indicators that focus on individual institutional missions, which will be ready
by 2004. There are ongoing assessment activities at individual campuses. The
commission currently is discussing student learning outcomes as a potential
indicator. The
community college system has been working on indicators for several years and is
subject to performance-based budgeting for the following indicators concerning
the number of students, who, after three years: 1) are transfer-ready,
2) received a degree or certificate, and 3) have
transferred. New
York State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Nancy Willy-Schiff, Interview
with Gary Blose, Interview
with Virginia Moreno, The
State Education Department has mandated institution-based assessment for
decades. The regulatory mandate affects all public, postsecondary institutions
in the two major systems—SUNY and CUNY—as well as independent colleges and
universities and degree-granting proprietary institutions. It is designed to
foster assessment efforts within institutions but is not intended to make
comparisons across institutions. At the state level, assessment results are used
primarily for program review and approval conducted by the State Education
Department. At present, institutions do not receive any specific or targeted
funding for assessment. These activities are currently funded through general
institutional appropriations at public institutions. SUNY’s
Board of Trustees has just approved a new general education policy that shapes
the general education curriculum for SUNY institutions. It was not well received
at many institutions because they felt the trustees were infringing on
academics’ turf. The trustees implemented a three-pronged policy comprising the
following elements: 1) assessing general education outcomes;
2) assessing major outcomes; and 3) evaluating institutional
effectiveness in these efforts. A task force developed a series of
recommendations regarding these areas, one of which is the development of
systemwide tests in a number of fields; this currently is circulating through
the system. CUNY’s
Board of Trustees approved a resolution in 1997 phasing out remediation in
senior colleges; this was later approved as an amendment to the CUNY Master
Plan. By 2001, all remedial courses will be eliminated from course offerings
across the system. Consequently, all students who are admitted into a
baccalaureate program are required to demonstrate that they do not need
remediation prior to enrolling in classes. Students who cannot demonstrate
college-level readiness may enroll, free of charge, in CUNY Immersion Programs
which offer work in the basic skill areas of reading, writing, mathematics and
English as a second language. For
placement and exit from remediation, CUNY is using the ACT ASSET tests in
reading and writing plus a written essay. A proficiency examination has been
developed by the CUNY faculty and outside consultants. It will assess students’
competence in academic reading, writing and critical thinking, and is in place
as of fall 2000. Students who enroll as first-time freshmen, beginning fall
1999, and transfer students, beginning fall 2000, must take and pass the test
before moving to upper-division work or graduating with an Associate Degree.
Some of the colleges within the CUNY system have assessment programs that are
used primarily in program evaluation. North
Carolina State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Gary Barnes, NC
Board of Community Colleges Web site The
University of North Carolina (UNC) system surveys its graduating seniors,
first-year alumni and their employers every year, in order to track students’
self-reported skill gains. This is an evolving data collection system that can
be adjusted every fourth year to address issues not currently covered as well as
new areas of concern. Although there is no direct measure of student learning,
employers and alumni are asked how well they were prepared for their jobs, and
students in postgraduate programs of study are asked how well their
undergraduate programs prepared them for advanced study. The UNC surveys are
biennial but individual institutions generally choose to administer them on
their own in the intervening years. The
UNC data are fed back to institutions for improvement purposes and are used in
the Universities’ Performance Program Budgeting System. In addition, data are
summarized in accountability reports given to the Board of Governors and are
posted on the Web site of the Office of the President. Areas of strength and
weakness are reviewed with the chancellor and senior staff at least once every
other year. Beginning
in the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the North Carolina Board of Community Colleges
(NCBCC) adopted 12 performance measures for accountability recommended by the
Performance Measures and Standards Task Force. • Progress of
basic-skills students. • Passing rates for
licensure and certification examinations. • Goal completion
of program completers and non-completers. • Employment status
of graduates. • Performance of
college transfer students. • Passing rates of
students in developmental courses. • Success rate of
developmental students in subsequent college-level
courses. • Satisfaction of
program completers and non-completers. • Curriculum
student retention and graduation. • Employer
satisfaction. • Business/industry
satisfaction with services provided. • Program
enrollment. In
February 1999, the NCBCC adopted the recommendations of the Legislative Study
Group for the implementation of performance funding. The recommendations
included identifying five required performance measures from an approved list of
the 12 performance measures. Performance funding was approved for implementation
in fiscal year 2000-2001, based upon data reported during
2000-2001. North
Dakota State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Michel Hillman, The
Board’s seven-year plan directed each campus to have a comprehensive program to
assess student learning goals by 1996. This has been interpreted to be the
assessment process required by North Central Association of Schools and
Colleges. Additionally,
the Board implemented a high school core curriculum admission requirement for
baccalaureate and graduate campuses and has contracted with ACT to study the
impact of this requirement. Results will be fed back to individual high
schools. For
the last few years, the system has been collecting and reporting student
performance on national licensing and certification exams. These reports will
become part of a new accountability mechanism recommended by a statewide
roundtable. The reports to the Board include campus-specific performance
information; however, the Board publishes only system-level information at this
time. Ohio State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Jay Johnson, Interview
with Terry Thomas, The
Ohio Board of Regents collects unit record data on each student’s enrollment at
Ohio public colleges and universities. The board can thus track student success
in individual course sections. Course sections are identified by level and
subject matter in order to differentiate between competencies in writing,
problem-solving and critical thinking. In
November 1999, the governor asked the board to consider developing performance
indicators for colleges and universities, and detailing them in an annual
report. The indicators he suggested include: 1) retention,
2) transfer, 3) graduation, 4) average time-to-degree, and
5) average credits-to-degree. The board has created a performance committee
to consider these indicators as well as some others, such as:
1) remediation requirements of entering freshman, by high school district
and college; 2) average time to declaration of first major for
undergraduates; 3) bar passage rates; 4) likelihood of undergraduate
students taught by faculty with academic rank; and 5) retention/persistence
from the first to second year. It is expected that the specific content and
format of an Ohio College And University
Performance Report will evolve over the next several years as the state’s
experience with the report grows and as statewide data become more available
from the Higher Education Information (HEI) system. The
Ohio Association of Community Colleges (OACC) is in the process of developing
performance indicators for their sector, with input from the board. The goals of
the Performance Management Process are: 1) to demonstrate accountability
for the expenditure of public funds by Ohio’s two-year colleges; 2) to
strengthen Ohio’s two-year colleges by benchmarking against national norms, and
subsequently by identifying, disseminating and replicating institutional best
practices; and 3) to educate citizens about the collective public value and
accomplishments of Ohio’s two-year colleges. The areas under consideration
include: 1) access; 2) student success; 3) workforce and economic development;
and 4) stewardship. The
OACC is considering several models for reporting two-year college performance.
The following are brief descriptions of four models based on analyzing the best
practices from across the country. Multiple models might be employed depending
on the intended audiences. These audiences may include state policymakers,
business community leaders, and parents, students and prospective
students: • A fact book, descriptive
approach—provides a narrative in bullet format of the key outcomes of Ohio’s
two-year colleges. • A student success
focus—provides evaluative data on key indicators of student
success. • A contextual information
approach—provides thematic data providing context for
performance. • An institutional
effectiveness model—provides data on Ohio’s two-year colleges performance on
critical success factors. Oklahoma State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Debra Stuart, The
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education adopted a comprehensive assessment
policy in October 1991. According to this policy, each institution must evaluate
students at four levels (graduate student assessment is
optional): • Entry-level
assessment and course placement to determine academic preparation and course
placement. • Mid-level
assessment to determine general education competencies in reading, writing,
mathematics and critical thinking. • Program outcomes
(exit-level) assessment to evaluate the outcomes in students’
majors. • Assessment of
student satisfaction to ascertain students’ perceptions of their educational
experiences including support services, academic curriculum, faculty,
etc. • Graduate student
assessment to assess student learning beyond standard admission and graduation
requirements, and to evaluate student satisfaction. Institutions
must submit annual assessment reports to the State Regents, which describe the
assessment activities and results at each level. Information on the number of
students assessed, the results of the assessment, and detailed plans for any
institutional and/or instructional changes due to the assessment results are
provided in the reports. Additional annual reports also list graduation rates,
licensure and certification pass rates and employment
rates. Entry
Level Assessment and Placement. The
purpose of entry-level assessment is to assist faculty and advisors in making
course placement decisions. Although all institutions currently use the ACT as
the first entry-level assessment, the testing instruments used for secondary
evaluation vary. Commonly selected commercial instruments include the ACT
Assessment of Skills for Successful Entry and Transfer (ASSET), the Accuplacer
Computerized Placement Test (CPT), ACT Computer-Adaptive Placement Assessment
(COMPASS), and the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Institutionally developed writing
and mathematics tests, as well as predictive statistical models, also are
used. Mid-Level
Assessment.
Mid-level assessment is designed to assess the basic skills and competencies
gained by students in the college general education program. Institutions are
required to assess students in reading, writing, mathematics and critical
thinking, after completion of 45 semester hours and prior to completion of 70
semester hours. For associate degree programs, assessment occurs typically at
the end of the program. Instruments used for mid-level assessment include
locally developed as well as standardized tests such as the ACT Collegiate
Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), the Riverside College Base Academic
Subjects Examination (BASE), and the Test of Adult Basic Education
(TABE). Program
Outcomes (Exit-Level) Assessment.
Program outcomes assessment, or major field of study assessment, is designed to
measure how well students are meeting institutionally stated program goals and
objectives. As with other assessment, institutions—especially their faculty—are
responsible for selecting and/or developing assessment instruments. Institutions
are encouraged to give preference to nationally standardized instruments that
supply normative data. Assessments include structured exit interviews, the
Educational Testing Services’ Major Field Assessment Tests (MFAT), national
graduate schools admission exams (GRE, MCAT, GMAT), the ACT College Outcome
Measured Program (COMP), senior projects, portfolios, recitals, national and
state licensing exams, internships, capstone courses, theses, transfer grade
point averages, and job placement. Results are used to revise
curricula. Assessment
of Student Satisfaction.
Student and alumni perceptions, collected through surveys, interviews, focus
groups, etc., are used to evaluate and enhance academic programs and services.
Nationally standardized surveys are used most often, but locally developed
surveys are administered at some colleges and universities. Students often are
surveyed at entry, during their college experience, and after they graduate.
Many institutions also survey withdrawing students. The ACT Student Opinion
Survey (SOS) is the most commonly used instrument. Others include the
Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), the ACT Alumni Survey, the ACT
Withdrawing or Non-returning Student Survey, and the ACT College Outcomes Survey
(COS). Oregon State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey State Board of Higher Education In
1991 the Legislature passed the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century. The
Act was amended in 1995 to require the State Board of Education to adopt content
standards in English, mathematics, science, the social sciences, the arts, and
second languages, and to revise the Common Curriculum Goals. The Act also
required the board to “regularly and periodically review and revise its Common
Curriculum Goals,” including the “rigorous content standards.”
The
board developed content standards and revised the Common Curriculum Goals with
input from nationally recognized curriculum experts as well as more than 1,500
citizens. In 1996 the board adopted the Common Curriculum Goals and content
standards, along with performance standards in mathematics and English, with
work continuing on the social sciences standards. At
the same time, the Oregon University System (OUS) adopted new admission
requirements for students applying to public institutions. These new
requirements will be phased in beginning with the fall term of 2001. To be
admitted, students will need to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in six
academic areas: English, mathematics, science, second languages, visual and
performing arts, and social sciences. The required knowledge and skills are
defined in terms of proficiencies; the new admission system is called the
Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS). Beginning in 2001,
applicants from Oregon public high schools will have the option of demonstrating
proficiency in English and mathematics to be admitted to a public institution.
Students applying in 2001 will still be required to meet subject area
requirements in science, social science and second languages, maintain a
required grade point average in those areas, and take the SAT I or ACT.
Proficiency options in other areas will be phased in over a four-year
period—science in 2002, the arts in 2003, second languages in 2004, and social
science in 2005. By fall 2005, applicants from Oregon public high schools will
be expected to meet proficiency requirements in all six subject
areas. Three
assessment methods are used to determine student performance on individual
proficiencies. One of the three methods will always be designated as the
preferred approach for each proficiency. Some proficiencies will utilize more
than one method. The three methods are: State
multiple-choice tests.
Standards-based multiple-choice tests are one component of the assessment
system. Results from these assessments may determine or contribute to
determining proficiency for a given area. National tests that have been
determined to align with specific proficiencies may also be acceptable for
demonstrating proficiency. State
on-demand assessment tasks.
Results from these tasks may determine or contribute to determining proficiency
for specific designated proficiencies. The PASS/COFLT Oral Proficiency
Assessment can be used for second language verification. Teacher
verifications of student work collections.
Teachers verify, or score, student work collections that are accumulated during
the normal course of instruction in one or more classes. Collections containing
student work focus on a proficiency or, in some cases, more than one
proficiency. Pennsylvania State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
Devki Khanna, Pennsylvania
has no mandate for assessment. The Department is currently in the process of
developing computer programs to calculate graduation
rates. Rhode
Island State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Diane Reedy, The
Board of Governors identified five goals and priorities for higher education in
2000-2003. These include: 1) Access and
Affordability. While maintaining academic quality across the institutions,
ensure that the Rhode Island system of public higher education is accessible and
affordable for all Rhode Islanders, and provide the resources necessary to allow
students to achieve academic success. 2) Fiscal
Planning. Develop a long-term
fiscal plan for public higher education that ensures quality and guides
decision-making, advocacy and contingency planning. 3) Pre-K–12 and
Teacher Preparation Reform. Increase the participation of higher education
in areas of pre-K–12 and teacher preparation reform. 4)
Technology. Provide and maintain efficient and contemporary
telecommunications and computing technology across the system of public higher
education and support its appropriate use in teaching, learning, research and
administration. 5) Quality
Assurance and Outcomes Assessment. Aspire to quality across the system of
public higher education in academic programs, management, student life, and
service to the state, so that the system will be seen not as a cost to the state
but rather as a catalyst for improving life in Rhode Island. Key initiatives for
this goal include: • Reviewing national and local
assessment models to determine best practices, and developing systemwide
performance indicators that will evaluate outcomes. • Reconfiguring academic plans
to accomplish: a. Possibly renaming
academic plans to emphasize that facilities, finance and technology needs, as
well as academic program plans, are to be incorporated into future
plans. b. Incorporating
NEASC outcome assessments into plans. c. Designing a new,
simplified reporting format that is useful to the board and its committees in
achieving system goals, while also illustrating the relationship of dollars and
expected outcomes to those goals. Assessing
student learning outcomes is currently under
discussion. South
Carolina State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Michael Smith, Performance
funding was enacted in 1996. The legislation required that the Commission on
Higher Education allocate state appropriations to South Carolina’s public
institutions based on their performance in nine areas or “critical success
factors.” Thirty-seven performance indicators were specified. The commission was
responsible for developing and implementing a system to base funding on
institutional performance and for defining how each indicator would be measured.
The General Assembly’s regulations specified a three-year phase-in period for
implementing a system to base all available funding on institutional
performance. In
compliance with its legislative mandate, the commission, in cooperation with
South Carolina’s higher education institutions and other stakeholders in the
state’s public higher education system, developed a system for determining
institutions’ funding based on their performance on the indicators. Several
indicators are related to learning and students: Instructional
Quality • Class size and
student/teacher ratios. • Average number of credit
hours taught by full-time teaching faculty. • Ratio of full-time faculty to
other full-time employees. • Accreditation of
degree-granting programs. • Institutional emphasis on
quality of teacher education and reform. Graduates’
Achievements • Graduation
rate. • Graduates’ employment
rate. • Employer feedback on
graduates. • Pass rates on exams and
certification tests. • Number of graduates
continuing their education. • Graduates’ earned credit
hours. The
Commission is currently discussing assessing student learning
outcomes. South
Dakota State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Paul Gough and Dan Petra, In
1997, the Board of Regents adopted nine state policy goals for higher
education: • Access for all
qualified South Dakotans. • Enrollment in
programs that will contribute to economic growth. • Improvement in
academic performance. • Attraction and
retention of quality professionals. • Development of
faculty professionals. • Collaboration
among the universities. • Enhancement of
current technology infrastructure. • Maintenance of
current facilities and equipment. • Generation of
external funds. As of
spring semester 1998, satisfactory performance on a proficiency exam was
required of all students seeking baccalaureate degrees from the South Dakota
Unified System of Higher Education. Beginning in fall semester 1999,
satisfactory performance on the proficiency exams was required of all incoming
students seeking an associate degree from the South Dakota Unified System of
Higher Education. The
board has contracted with the ACT, Inc., to use the Collegiate Assessment of
Academic Proficiency (CAAP) exam as the Regental Proficiency Examination.
Baccalaureate degree-seeking students become eligible to sit for the exam after
completing 48 credit hours, and associate degree-seeking students become
eligible after passing 32 credit hours. Satisfactory performance is required on
all four components of the examination: writing skills, mathematics, reading and
science reasoning. Students who fail to achieve satisfactory scores on one or
more components of the exam have one year in which to earn a satisfactory score.
Students who do not achieve the minimum satisfactory proficiency level on their
final retest are denied subsequent registration at all Regental institutions.
The proficiency exam is administered during the fall and spring semesters of
each year. Students’
achievement in general education knowledge and skills, as measured by comparing
ACT and CAAP scores, is one component of the system’s incentive funding policy.
Each university is required to have a functioning assessment program which
conforms to the accreditation requirements of the North Central Association of
Schools and Colleges and any specialized accreditors. Universities provide a
report of their assessment program to the board every five
years. Effective
fall semester 2000, all Regental teacher education programs will require that
students sit for a major field examination in teacher education during the
semester in which they complete their student teaching exam. All education
students will be required to sit for Praxis II: Principles of Learning and
Teaching, Grades K–6 and Grades 7–12. Students in secondary education also will
be required to sit for the Praxis exam in the content areas of their major. The
Praxis II exams will be offered during the fall, spring and summer semesters.
South Dakota does not currently require minimal performance on the Praxis II for
certification. Data on student performance on the Praxis II will be used to
establish benchmarks for individual advising and program
improvement. Tennessee State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with George Malo, Performance
funding has existed in Tennessee since the mid 1970s and supplements objective
formula funding by rewarding institutional performance. The program measures
public institutions on a set of quantitative outcomes-based standards, and
institutions can earn up to 5.45 percent over their operating budget.
Performance funding measures each institution on the following outcomes-based
standards: • Academic
Performance: General Education. 1) foundation testing of general
education outcomes, and 2) pilot evaluations of other general education
outcomes. • Academic
Performance: Major Fields. 1) accreditation of academic programs,
2) program review, and 3) major field
assessment. • Student
Success and Satisfaction.
1) enrolled student/alumni survey, 2) retention/persistence, and
3) job placement (two-year institutions only). • State and
Institutional Initiatives.
1) institutional strategic plan goals; and 2) state strategic exam
goals. There
are three types of student learning outcomes assessment: general education
foundation testing, general education outcomes, and major field assessments. The
first, foundation testing in general education, uses either the ACT COMP or
College BASE. In 2001, the ACT COMP will no longer be used. Institutions will be
able to choose from either the College BASE, the California Critical Thinking and Skills Test, or
ETS’ Academic Profile Test. All undergraduates working toward an
associate or baccalaureate degree
in either traditional degree or career training programs must take the exam,
although institutions graduating more than 500 students a year may petition to
test a representative sample of students. At least 20 percent of an
institution’s students must be tested (and no fewer than 500). Three methods of
scoring performance are used: 1) comparing to national norm and trends of
the institutional score; 2) comparing to the previous cycle and subsequent
changes in mean scores; or 3) comparing the institutional score to national
percentiles. The
second test measures general education outcomes, and must assess the performance
of associate and/or baccalaureate graduates in areas other than that used in the
general education foundation exam. Institutions can choose their own evaluation
measures. Participation is voluntary, but if institutions opt out, points for
this measure will be based on their performance on the general education
foundation testing. The
third test is a major field assessment. Institutions can use existing, typically
national, exams for this, or develop their own. If they choose the latter,
however, they must evaluate the test for reliability and validity. Institutional
comparisons will be made either to national norms or scores from previous
exams. Institutions
are awarded points depending on how their students score on the exams, and may
earn up to a total of 5.45 percent over their operating
budget. Texas State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Janet Beinky, The
Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP) was created by the 70th Texas Legislature
in 1987 as an early assessment and academic support program for all students
entering Texas public institutions of higher education. The first TASP test was
administered in March 1989. Students are required to take the TASP assessment to
determine if they have the reading, writing and mathematics skills, as defined
by higher education faculty, to be successful in college. Multiple choice tests
are used to assess reading, writing and mathematics, although the writing exam
is primarily an essay. Content committees selected from colleges and
universities across the state review the test sections for content validity.
Tested skills reflect preparedness to attempt college-level course work and
passing criteria are set by the Higher Education Coordinating
Board. Students
found to have academic skill deficiencies in these areas must enroll in remedial
programs until skill mastery is demonstrated by passing the appropriate sections
of the TASP test. Students must pass all three sections of the TASP test before
they can take upper-level courses beyond 60 semester credit hours and before
they can graduate from a certificate, associate or baccalaureate degree program.
Institutions may require local placement tests with standards that are higher
than required by the state-mandated TASP. The
board has very specific guidelines for reporting TASP results, enrollment and
graduation, faculty data, and facilities use. TASP test results are used to
identify institutions that achieve the best results with students requiring
various types and levels of remediation. Prospective
educator testing began with the establishment of the State Board for Educator
Certification (SBEC) in 1995. State law requires that individuals pass
examinations in the areas in which they seek certification. The certification
board manages the development and administration of the Examination for the
Certification of Educators in Texas (ExCET), Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT)
and Texas Assessment of Sign Communication (TASC) and (TASC-ASL) testing
programs. Individuals typically take the ExCET Professional Development test and
additional tests in the academic disciplines in which they seek certification
after completing a program in preparation for the specific certificate(s). These
tests assess the prospective educator’s knowledge of academic content and
teaching, including understanding of learners. (For more information see:
http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/). SBEC
monitors the quality of educator preparation at the university and alternative
certification programs through the Accountability System for Educator
Preparation (ASEP). The certification board uses assessment data and, in the
future, the performance of beginning teachers to determine program quality, and
issues annual accreditation reports according to minimum acceptable performance
levels established by SBEC. SBEC sets the minimum score required to pass each
certification test. Passing levels determine whether universities’ preparation
programs maintain eligibility to nominate students to take the
tests. Utah State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Phyllis Safman, State
legislation requires the Utah State Board of Regents to oversee institutional
student assessment efforts. Specifically, it directs the Regents
to: “…require
each college and university in the system to establish multiple measures of
institutional and student assessment in order to improve student instruction,
academic programs, and learning opportunities. The board must also submit
biennial accountability reports to the Legislature, which shall include such
factors as…student assessment at entry to each institution, at critical midway
points and at exit. The board shall also establish a systemwide committee to
address assessment and accountability issues and propose essential elements to
be included in the biennial report.” Since
1995, the Utah System of Higher Education has conducted biennial assessments to
demonstrate its accountability regarding four indicators that will be
benchmarked for possible performance funding. These indicators are: 1) the
proportion of students who pass licensure examinations; 2) average credits
to graduation for native students; 3) average credits to graduation for
transfer students; and 4) average weekly teaching contact hours compared to
the Regents’ standards. These and other indicators are included in the
report. In
1999 the Regents sponsored a pilot evaluation of general education using the
Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP). Institutions administered
the CAAP to 3,148 first- and second-year students. Some of the findings of the
pilot include: 1) The test does not align with course content and
objectives that are included in general education programs, nor does it relate
to the Utah State System of Higher Education-defined general education
competencies and goals; 2) the test results are too general, so they do not
offer guidance to faculty for improving their courses; and 3) because the
test was not tied to specific course or degree requirements, students were not
motivated to take the exam seriously. The results of the pilot have led members
of the Regents General Education Task Force to conclude that Utah institutions
will be better served by developing statewide general education tests that are
directly connected to course content and objectives, and to Regent-approved
competencies. Thus far, systemwide faculty committees in writing, mathematics
and American Institutions have identified competencies and are in the process of
developing online assessments in these courses. The Board of Regents also is
piloting a portfolio assessment in writing toward the end of the sophomore year.
The pilot will start with the beginning of fall semester
2000. The
Regents requested funds for performance funding to encourage institutions’
assessment efforts, and each institution provided two performance indicators of
its own. However, the Legislature did not elect to fund this initiative. As soon
as the general education instruments are online, students will be required to
pass them in order to complete their general education
coursework. Vermont State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Robert Lorenz, Vermont
has no statewide governing board and there have been no legislative mandates
regarding assessing student learning. Assessment is generally done at individual
institutions. Virginia State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Mark Hampton, The
governor convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Higher Education, and student learning
outcomes was one of the issues explored. Learning outcomes probably will be
assessed as part of institutional effectiveness within a year, but it is not yet
clear how this will be done. Institutions
will be able to determine their expectations for their students and identify
reliable and valid instruments to use. The state will require certain comparable
measures regarding graduation rates, licensure, etc. The panel also identified
math, science, critical thinking, communication and technology as important
skills, with the latter possibly becoming a statewide
standard. The
State Council for Higher Education is considering performance funding to
encourage institutional accountability. Five measures have been identified for
four-year institutions: 1) graduation rate, 2) retention rate, 3) exit exams
(e.g., licensure rates, GRE subject scores, etc.), 4) postgraduate placement, and 5)
faculty productivity. Two-year institutions will have six performance measures,
the measures used for four-year institutions plus transfer rates. These measures
will be phased in over a three-year period. The
state will require “institutional performance agreements” in which institutions
develop plans/strategies for increasing student competencies or graduation
rates. Institutions will identify their expectations for students in math,
science, communication, critical thinking and technology (although the latter
may become a statewide standard); funding decisions will be based on these
agreements. Any kind of demonstrated progress in the identified areas will
result in funding. Reports of institutional progress regarding their performance
agreements will be made public, which should act as an incentive for
institutions. Washington State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Tom Weko, Interview
with Bill Moore, The
Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) is in the process of developing
competency-based admissions standard to eventually replace the current HECB
minimum admissions standards. These standards are designed to be consistent with
the K–12 reform work of the Commission on Student Learning, to signal precisely
to students what it means to be prepared for college, and to allow students who
have followed various pathways in high school to assess and demonstrate their
readiness for the collegiate learning experience. The
Legislature and governor recently enacted legislation which directs a
multi-institution group, with HECB participation, to conduct a feasibility study
of developing standards for writing, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking
and technology literacy. The institutions and HECB have begun to work
collaboratively on an information/technology literacy standard. Progress on this
initiative will be outlined in HECB’s accountability report and recommendations
to the Legislature in November 2000. At
the same time the four-year institution accountability system was implemented,
the Legislature directed the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
(SBCTC) to implement a similar system for the two-year institutions (the
efficiency index) and three others specific to two-year colleges. In 1999, when
the performance budgeting process moved to a reporting process, the Legislature
also approved the two-year system’s request to change the nature of the
indicators used, to more clearly reflect the major mission areas of the system,
including: 1) access to affordable higher education; 2) responsiveness to
customer needs; 3) workforce education and training for the 21st century; 4)
increasing basic skills; 5) diversifying students and programs; 6) using new
technologies; 7) student achievement; 8) promoting a collaborative system; and
9) developing and sustaining a first-class faculty and
staff. SBCTC
has long reported data to the Legislature on retention and graduation rates as
well as graduates’ employment status and wages. SBCTC data are collected through
a common data system for all colleges, self-report surveys and data-linking with
existing data sources such as labor department wage files and four-year college
records. While these are not strictly learning outcomes, the system is moving
toward assessing learning outcomes, including: 1) transfer-ready students (based
on minimum required grade point average); 2) basic-skills students who
demonstrate substantive gain as a result of their adult basic education and
English as a second language instruction; and 3) students prepared for work as
measured by vocational degrees and related certificates awarded, including
achievement of industry skill standards. Additionally, each institution has its
own outcomes and assessment programs. West
Virginia State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Information
Obtained from the In
1992, legislation was passed directing the Higher Education Central Office to
collect, analyze and report data on specific indicators such as the average
ACT/SAT scores of entering freshmen, the number of degrees awarded, the ratio of
students to faculty, etc. Legislation passed in 1995 outlined further
requirements for institutional and system assessment. The bill mandates that
“the governing boards shall prepare institutional report cards for institutions
under their jurisdiction and systemwide report cards…and review report card data
in relation to previously adopted board goals, five year plans, regional and
national higher education trends and the resource allocation
model.” The
1999 West Virginia Higher Education Report Card provides data in the following
areas: 1)
Preparation 2)
Access 3) Student
outcomes •
Graduation/completion rates •
Graduation/completion rates by financial aid, gender, first-time
attendance •
Preparing students to compete in a global economy (e.g., second language
acquisition) •
License exam rates for AA, BA and graduate/professional
students •
Results of undergraduate graduating student surveys (satisfaction with
educational experiences) 4) Economic and
workforce development •
Development activities take by institutions •
Average earnings by major 5) Productivity and
efficiency 6) Faculty and
staff 7) Campus
security 8) Health sciences
and rural health partnerships. Wisconsin State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Jonathan Keller, In
1993 the governor formed a task force to consider options for accountability
reporting, and to recommend an approach to be adopted by the UW system. As a
result, the UW Board of Regents adopted 18 indicators, which formed the basis
for the “UW System’s Accountability for Achievement Report.” This report has
been issued annually since 1994. In
July 1999, President Katharine Lyall appointed the Accountability Review Task
Force, which she charged with four tasks: 1) Evaluate the existing report;
2) identify areas for developing new/revised measures; 3) provide
guidance and direction for staff work in developing new/revised measures; and
4) develop an outline for a new report to be submitted to the president.
This taskforce developed an updated set of priorities for accountability, which
they felt best reflect the UW system’s goals for the 21st
century. The
new accountability report, entitled Achieving Excellence, will describe the
UW system’s progress toward achieving excellence for Wisconsin citizens. An
appointed task force developed six goals and 21 indicators to measure the
system’s success in achieving excellence— several pertain to student learning:
1) Improve learning competencies and provide learning experiences that foster
the development of critical thinking skills; 2) provide a learning environment
that fosters the ability to function in a dynamic world community; 3) enhance
the learning environment by providing opportunities for guided research,
mentorship, and access to student services and resources that foster learning
and citizenship. The newly designed goals and indicators reflect updated
accountability interests regarding institutional performance and enhanced
approaches to reporting higher education accountability. The new indicators also emphasize the
learning environment about which broader inferences may be drawn to include the
effectiveness of institutional efforts. The
Achieving Excellence report will be
produced annually. However, certain measures may only be reported in two-year or
three-year cycles depending on data collection, assessment methods, and
benchmarks. Individual institutions conduct their own assessments, but are not
required to report their results to the system administration on a regular
basis. Different instruments will be used to measure the indicators. For
example, certain questions from the National Survey of Student Engagement, and
from the ACT Alumni Outcomes Survey will be used to measure experiences that
foster critical thinking skills. The
UW system used to conduct a sophomore competency exam using the ACT CAAP.
However, since it was not mandated that every student take it, there was
difficulty in obtaining a representative sample, which cast doubt on the
validity of the resulting data. Wyoming State-Level
Student Learning Outcomes Survey Interview
with Steve Butler, Nothing
currently is being done at the state or system level regarding student learning
outcomes. The
development of a new MIS system and the North Central Association of Schools and
Colleges’ assessment requirement in their accreditation standards may nudge the
system toward assessment. Some institutions will probably try to assess outcomes
using samples of students. |