|
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 |