UK Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, SACS Reaffirmation Project: July Assessment Update Presented by: Dr. Mia Alexander-Snow, Director, Planning & Institutional Effectiveness Ms. Tara Rose, Director, Office of Assessment

Core Requirement 2.5: Institutional Effectiveness  Ongoing, integrated, university-wide, research- based, planning and evaluation  Systematic review of mission, goals, and outcomes  Results in continuous quality improvement  Demonstrates mission accomplished SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6,

Core Requirement 2.5: Assessment of Unit Progress Systematic review of 200 Unit Strategic Plans & Annual Progress Reports Mission Goals (UK, Unit) Unit Objectives Assessment Methods Actual Results Analysis Improvement Actions SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6,

Core Requirement 2.5: Assessment of Unit Progress Each Unit received 1 of 3 Progress Ratings: SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, C = CompleteRequired fields complete 3 + of “content areas” M (Model)Unit plan and/or progress report reflects points of “excellence.” C (Comprehensive)Unit plan and/or progress report has mission, good objective alignments, strategies (not required), appropriate assessments, and well described reporting and improvement actions E (Emerging)Needs tweaking with one or more required fields

Core Requirement 2.5: Assessment of Unit Progress Each Unit received a 1 of 3 Progress Ratings: SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, IP= In ProgressUnit has made attempts to complete— at least 50% of required fields addressed and/or 3 or more of the fields were incomplete or insufficiently addressed E (Emerging) Unit plan and/or progress report reflects good effort, but needs “tweaking” or assistance with required fields

Core Requirement 2.5: Assessment of Unit Progress Each Unit received a 1 of 3 Progress Ratings: SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, IP= In ProgressUnit has made attempts to complete— at least 50% of required fields addressed and/or 3 or more of the fields were incomplete or insufficiently addressed E (Emerging) Unit plan and/or progress report reflects good effort, but needs “tweaking” or assistance with required fields

Core Requirement 2.5: Assessment of Unit Progress Each Unit received 1 of 3 Progress Ratings: SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, NP= No ProgressUnit has no strategic plan and/or data has not been sufficiently entered for annual progress reporting

Core Requirement 2.5: Institutional Effectiveness Effort (as of 6/1/2011) Strategic Planning & Annual Progress Reporting Effort Unit Type# of UnitsIP % In Progress No Progress % No ProgressC % Complete Admin % % % Educational % % % Total % % % Provost % % % President %457.14%228.57% EVPFA % %318.75% SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6,

Comprehensive Standard : Institutional Effectiveness The institution  identifies expected outcomes (including student learning outcomes) for its educational programs  assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes  provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results SACS Leadership Team Meeting, July 6,

Student Learning Assessment Update As of June 30, 2011, the University of Kentucky is not in compliance with comprehensive standard , due to incomplete evidence of student learning outcomes assessment and improvement. All educational programs are asked to enter annual Improvement Action Plans: Outcomes Methods of Assessment Benchmark/Target Results Analysis Improvement Action Leadership Team Meeting, July 6,

Student Learning Assessment Compliance Rate Leadership Team Meeting, July 6, College Number of Degree ProgramsPecent of Compliance Agriculture4065% Arts & Sciences6085% Business & Economics1080% Communications & Information729% Dentistry250% Design425% Education4115% Engineering2924% Fine Arts2162% Graduate School40% Health Sciences11100% Law10% Medicine1217% Nursing450% Pharmacy3100% Public Health40% Social Work3100% Graduate Certificates*00% Student Learning Assessment Compliance Rate25645%