What the *!# Is Middle States Looking For? A Review of Standards 7 and 14—Institutional & Student Learning Assessment Presentation to the Association of Institutional Research and Planning Officers Albany, New York June 17, 2010

Presenters Patty Francis Associate Provost Institutional Assessment & Effectiveness SUNY Oneonta Sean McKitrick Assistant Provost Institutional Research & Assessment Binghamton University

Session Objectives To examine MSCHE’s expectations for Standards 7 and 14 To describe strategies campuses might use in preparing to meet those standards (and convince Middle States they meet them!)

Background Information

Recent Changes at MSCHE Strengthening of standards in 2002 ◦Emphasis on importance of student learning outcomes, reflected in creation of new standard for student learning (i.e., Standard 14) ◦New focus on “institutional assessment” (i.e., Standard 7) Addition of “assessment expert” to evaluation teams and hiring of Linda Suskie, nationally- known figure in learning outcomes assessment Even more changes as a result of national pressures (e.g., Spellings Commission, HEA)

MSCHE Expectations for Planning and Assessment “It is the Commission’s intent, through the self-study process, to prompt institutions to reflect on those assessment activities currently in place (both for institutional effectiveness and student learning), to consider how these assessment activities inform institutional planning, and to determine how to improve the effectiveness and integration of planning and assessment.”

Range of Middle States Actions Reaffirm accreditation (that’s the best one!) Reaffirm accreditation and request that PRR address specific issues that need attention Reaffirm accreditation and request a progress letter Reaffirm accreditation and request a monitoring report (team visit may follow) Warn institution accreditation may be in jeopardy and request monitoring report (visit will follow) Postpone decision on accreditation and request supplemental information report

Is Middle States Serious? Review of MSCHE Website for SUNY institutions, March 2005 to November 2009 – For 10-year accreditation: No assessment issues for 13 institutions Progress letters requested for 3 institutions Monitoring reports requested for 7 institutions Warnings issued for 2 institutions – For PRR: No assessment issues for 19 institutions Progress letters requested for 9 institutions Monitoring reports requested for 3 institutions Warning issued for 1 institution Accreditation decision postponed for 1 institution

Feedback Session #1: How Ready is YOUR Campus? When is your next accreditation action (10- year, PRR)? Were you required to provide follow-up after last action related to assessment? Do you have specific concerns related to: Standard 7? Standard 14?

Understanding Standard 14 and Preparing for It

Fundamental Elements for Standard 14 Clearly articulated statements of expected student learning outcomes at all levels that are integrated and congruent with institutional mission as well as with standards of higher education and of discipline Use of assessment process that is organized, documented, and sustained

Fundamental Elements for Standard 14 (cont.) Use of measures that: – Are direct – Consist of multiple qualitative and/or quantitative indicators – Maximize existing data and information – Relate clearly and purposefully to the goals they are assessing Support and collaboration of faculty and administration is apparent Existence of clear, realistic guidelines and timetable as well as supported by institutional resources

Fundamental Elements for Standard 14 (cont.) Provisions for evaluating and revising the assessment process itself Evidence that students are achieving key institutional and program outcomes Mechanisms for sharing and discussing assessment results and using them to improve teaching and learning Documented use of assessment results as part of institutional assessment (link to Standard 7)

Issues of Particular Interest to a Reviewer Distinction between accredited and non- accredited programs Are “ordinary” faculty (i.e., not chairs or others in leadership positions) involved in assessment? Are programs engaging in PROGRAM assessment (i.e., as opposed to COURSE assessment)? [Note: Don’t forget gen ed!] Is the institution supporting assessment, and what’s the proof? What happens to assessment data after measures are administered?

Understanding Standard 7 and Preparing for It

Feedback Session #2: What’s Your Reaction? What is absurd about this commercial? What does it say about the relationship between quality and planning? What does it say about the relationship between assessment and quality?

Fundamental Elements for Standard 7 Documented, organized, and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve the total range of programs and services and achievement of institutional mission, goals, and plans Written institutional (strategic) plan that reflects consideration of assessment results Evidence that assessment results are shared and used in institutional planning, resource allocation, and renewal

Background Issues Relationship between Standards 7 and 2 Does not obviate need for addressing issues relating to Standard 14 Key words—planned, sustained, strategic, useful, meaningful, cost effective

From: Suskie, L :understanding Middle States Expectations for Assessment, 2009 AIRPO Conference, Buffalo, NY.

Issues of Particular Interest to a Reviewer Student learning goes beyond the classroom, so where is this assessed? If unit focuses on students, this needs to be assessed Assessment in non-academic or administrative units (from facilities to the bursar) Coordination of assessment processes

Importance of Overall Strategic Plan Mission and vision Goals/Objectives Performance indicators Alignment between overall plan and “the trenches” Periodic (not episodic) use of assessment data for budgeting and decision-making

Two Tough Nuts to Crack Documentation and Assessment as “Sustained” Activity

How Do We Document Processes? Meeting minutes Data dashboards Unit assessment plans Unit narratives Unit/division/university strategic plans with annual reports

Ways to Assess Ways Assessments are Used Ways to Document Impact Community Service Internship Survey Discussed in senior staff meetings Meeting minutes; curriculum docs ProductivityBi-annual productivity studies Discussed with deans and dept heads Revenue Access Diversity Scholarship Learning Assessment, Use, and Documentation

Documenting Linkage Between Budgeting, Assessment, & Strategic Plan

Graphing Results

How Do We Demonstrate Sustained Assessment? Keep good records of all assessment activity, preferably in a central repository Keep (and update regularly) a “history of assessment” on your campus Be able to demonstrate your campus has responded appropriately to past MSCHE suggestions/recommendations Perhaps most important, practice “assessment for improvement”

Assessment for Improvement Assessment for Accountability 1. Major impetus: Using data to get better 2. Process is ongoing, part of “SOP” 3. Process is faculty/ staff driven (with support) 4. Assessment seen as valuable – and valued – by institution 1. Major impetus: Satisfying accreditors 2. Process “stop and start,” intermittent 3. Process is “top-down” 4. Institution pays little attention to assessment (once accreditors are gone From Banta, T.W. (2007). Can assessment for accountability complement assessment for improvement? Peer Review,

What the *!# Is Middle States Looking For? A Review of Standards 7 and 14—Institutional & Student Learning Assessment Presentation to the Association of Institutional Research and Planning Officers Albany, New York June 17, 2010