1. Excellence in Assessment Designation: Sharing our Success Stories
AAC&U Annual Meeting
San Francisco, CA – January 25-28, 2017

2. Overview Introduction to the Excellence in Assessment Designations
Lessons from our Inaugural Designees
Dr. Alice Knudsen, Mills College
Dr. Rosalie Mince, Community College of Baltimore County
Dr. Jeff Grann, Capella University
Lessons Learned from 2016 Campus Applications
Audience Q&A /Discussion

3. Excellence in Assessment Designations
National recognition program for campus assessment leaders
Evaluation based on the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) Transparency Framework
Focus on campus-wide assessment – including student affairs & external stakeholders
Joint project of the VSA, NILOA, and the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U)

4. Why did we create the EIA Designations?
The ability of a campus to clearly and convincingly communicate the learning outcomes of all their graduates, regardless of program of study, is paramount to the success of our students, institutions, and larger national economic and competitive priorities. Policymakers and external stakeholders are increasingly questioning the value of higher education experiences as a whole, focusing on labor market outcomes to hold certain types of programs or majors up as preferred. Institutions and the higher education industry as a whole have struggled to push back on these claims, citing the complexity of evaluating student learning across varied and disparate programs in easily comparable ways.
See for example: USA Today College (December 10, 2015). “Is college worth it? Goldman Sachs says not so much”: The New York Times TheUpshot (May 27, 2014). “Is College Worth It? Clearly, New Data Say”: and Money (October 5, 2015). “Why College is Still Worth It Even Though It Costs Too Much”:
Carnevale, A.P., Cheah, B., & Hanson, A.R. (2015). The Economic Value of College Majors. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce.

5. Why did we create the EIA Designations?
Faculty & instructional staff
Student Affairs staff
Accreditors, governing boards
Employers, subsequent institutions
Students & Alumni
Despite these challenges, many campuses are successfully designing and implementing campus-wide assessment systems that provide evidence of the learning of all students. These systems are horizontally and vertically integrated to encompass learning both in and outside of the classroom, and are validated by participation and evaluation of external stakeholders, including alumni, employers, and schools their students subsequently attend for additional study. By incorporating all areas of campus, not just the academic experiences that occur in the classroom, institutions are able to confidently assert the competency of their students in areas of leadership and teamwork, essential outcomes for employers in today’s diverse workplaces., Building intentionally integrated layered systems that rest on the foundational work of faculty in the classroom, campuses are able to provide deep and rich evidence of students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U).
Deming, D.J. (2015). The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and NBER.
Campus-level assessment is often thought of as an accountability or accreditation concern that is somewhat removed from the work of faculty teaching in specific programs or classes. Faculty may be disinvested from the administration of a campus-wide assessment instrument, at best seeing it as a benign requirement to appease external cries for accountability. The EIA program, however, understands that campus-level assessment builds from a foundation of faculty assessment of student learning, as an integrated component designed to serve as a “tip of the iceberg” indicator for the depth and breadth of student learning happening on our campuses (Figure 1).
Kuh, G. D., Jankowski, N., Ikenberry, S. O., & Kinzie, J. (2014). Knowing What Students Know and Can Do: The Current State of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment in US Colleges and Universities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).
Campus-level assessment does not necessarily consist of use of an identical or standardized assessment instrument administered to all students, but represents a broader and deeper assessment plan that is integrated across departments and programs. An ideal campus-wide assessment plan would consist of aligned outcomes at the student-, course-, program-/major-, and degree-levels. What that looks like for any given campus may be varied and diverse, and recognizing the multiple right paths to demonstrating student outcomes is the goal of the EIA designations.
In this view, assessment activities occur at multiple levels where each level is related to and either builds from or supports the levels below and above it, creating a scaffold of evidence across all students. The nature and setting of assessment activities at each level may or may not be different, e.g., assessment of campus-level learning outcomes may occur within the context and setting of an individual capstone course or it may occur in a separate, proctored exam depending on the program and institution.
The results of the assessment at each level, however, need to be comparable across all students so results can be interpreted and used to identify the need for, and guide the implementation of, program and curricular improvements. Just as all students in an Accounting program need to pass a licensure exam to ensure that they have all learned the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform as a Certified Public Accountant, all students at an institution should be assessed with approaches that provide results comparable to each other to ensure all students have learned the core knowledge, skills, and abilities the institution has identified as necessary to earn a degree.
Ideally, scaffolding of learning outcomes occurs across courses and programs such that the assessment work from an individual course can link to and inform the assessment work of a program. This scaffolding allows for fewer assessment activities to occur at higher levels of the pyramid than at lower levels–the evidence built from beneath serves to support the evidence provided at the top. This explains, in part, why a single representative sample of campus-level assessment outcomes is one way to reliably represent the learning of all students on campus.

6. Why did we create the EIA Designations?
One of the main goals of the EIA program is to create a national recognition for campuses that are successfully integrating assessment practices across campus to provide evidence of student learning outcomes that are representative of all students who attend their institution. There is currently no such recognition, which hinders our efforts in at least three areas.
First, if we can’t identify more than a handful of institutions that have become known for their assessment work, we limit the models available to campuses to consider. There is not one right way to implement a broad and deep assessment plan on all campuses, but rather many right ways. Not only does this limit our examples, it limits our ability to celebrate the work being done on campuses that contributes to student success. Assessment done well is integrated throughout the work of many campus faculty and staff; by offering a national recognition of those institutions doing exemplary work, the EIA designations create an opportunity to reward and celebrate those efforts.
Second, because we can’t universally identify campuses who are engaged in good assessment practice, we can’t connect individual institutions with other institutions who may be similarly situated to help foster learning and sharing of what works and what doesn’t. By explicitly recognizing that there are many models for effective assessment of student learning, the EIA designations serve as both celebration of the work these campuses have accomplished as well as guideposts for other campuses looking to improve their own evaluation of student learning. The EIA designations are open to all regionally accredited institutions and the goal is to identify a plethora of examples from across sectors and levels to share broadly. By actively seeking to identify those institutions who are doing this work, we will create a larger network of examples for other campuses to explore.
Third, the lack of a common, national recognition program for campus assessment limits our ability to engage with external stakeholders and hold up concrete examples of the good assessment work our campuses are engaged in. We are continually questioned about the value of higher education for our students, but lack a nationally recognized and respected means to rebut the claims that we are disorganized and muddled. While still respecting the diversity of what good assessment looks like in practice, the EIA designations provide a signal and a standard for external audiences to look to.

7. How does the NILOA Transparency Framework fit in?
Institutions more frequently report assessment results internally than to external audiences.
However, doing good integrated assessment is only half the job. We need to be better at communicating what we’re doing, how we’re supporting it on our campuses, and what it all means to our stakeholders – both on-campus and off.
NILOA Report (January 2014): Knowing What Students Know and Can Do: The Current State of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment in US Colleges and Universities
In keeping with the original vision of the VSA to help institutions better tell their stories, therefore, the EIA Designations use a rubric developed from the NILOA Transparency Framework to evaluate campus applications, creating intention focus on communication of assessment processes and results.
Even those campuses that are engaged in intentionally aligned assessment of student learning struggle to tell their stories to the variety of stakeholders they are accountable to. While most campuses now make a practice of publicly stating what their learning outcomes are, they generally share assessment findings internally, and frequently only to faculty or assessment committees. Rarely are assessment plans or rationales shared even with students or alumni, much less with external stakeholders such as employers, institutions who accept students for continued study, state legislators, or the public. Put another way, campuses talk about assessment to themselves when they talk about it at all.
The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) created the Transparency Framework “to help institutions evaluate the extent to which they are making evidence of student accomplishment readily accessible and potentially useful and meaningful to various audiences.” Based on a national review of campus assessment websites, the Transparency Framework consists of six components centered around a set of underlying principles common to all components (Figure 2). Guidance on the NILOA website includes key questions institutions can ask to help ensure they are making evidence of their assessment and student learning readily accessible and useful to both internal and external audiences.
Kuh, G. D., Jankowski, N., Ikenberry, S. O., & Kinzie, J. (2014). Knowing What Students Know and Can Do: The Current State of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment in US Colleges and Universities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. (2011). Transparency Framework. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). Retrieved from:

8. Application Components
Letter from Senior Campus Leadership
Annotated list of individuals and groups engaged in assessment activities across campus
Application narrative
Self study reflection process
Draws heavily on components of the NILOA Transparency Framework
Reflection and Growth/Improvement Plan
Evaluation by national assessment experts
A letter from senior campus leadership (e.g., President/Chancellor) stating why the campus decided to pursue the Excellence in Assessment Designation. The letter is the introduction to your campus application and should be no more than two pages. The letter should provide an overview of your institution’s submission for the EIA designation, including any highlights you wish to emphasize in your application. The letter is not scored as part of the application.
A completed campus contacts form (see form provided as part of this packet).
An annotated lists of individuals and groups engaged in assessment activities across campus, such as assessment councils or committees at the campus, college, or department level, with brief descriptions of the charge of each group as it relates to assessment. These individuals and groups are not required to participate in the creation of the application, but rather are intended to help reviewers better understand the structure of assessment processes on the applicant campus. This list can also serve as a reference document within the narrative so that applicants do not have to explain the function of each group in the content of their applications.
Application narrative of between 2000 and (no more than) 3000 words. Tables or figures included in the process narrative count toward the 3000 word limit.
The application narrative should be written to an audience of higher education peers who are not familiar with the applying institution’s context or assessment processes and approaches. Basic familiarity with higher education assessment, accreditation, and accountability concepts can be assumed.
Applications should address the eight domains described below in more depth in the Narrative Components section:
Groups & Individuals Engaged in Assessment Activities
The NILOA Transparency Framework Components as viewed from the perspective of campus-level/campus-wide assessment of student learning outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes Statements
Campus-level Assessment Plan
Campus-level Assessment Resources
Current Campus-level Assessment Activities
Evidence of Campus-level Student Learning
Use of Campus-level Student Learning
Reflection and Growth/Improvement Plan
It is not a requirement that each domain be given equal space; campuses should decide the best use and formatting of their application information.
You may include links to additional information online and/or provide appendices as references within your narrative if you feel that the information contained within the appendix cannot be succinctly summarized or described. Reviewers will be asked to read material at web links or appendices only as noted in the Application Narrative Components. Applicants should make every attempt to include all pertinent information in their narrative. Do not attach forms, templates, reports, or screenshots of information in lieu of describing the process for and functions of integrated assessment activities on your campus.
Institutions should provide narrative for each of the criteria domains, clearly labeled, in their application. It is not intended for every institution to respond explicitly and separately to each of the guiding questions; they are provided to help demonstrate some of the ways in which an institution could address both the breadth and depth of their assessment activities. The guiding questions are, however, strongly linked with the scoring rubric, so institutions should plan to address the topics in the guiding questions in their response.

9. Inaugural Designees Announced August 2016
2017 application period now open!

10. Pursuing and Maintaining Excellence in Assessment
Alice Knudsen, EdD Director of Institutional Research, Planning, & Academic Assessment Mills College
January 27, 2:45-3:45
2017 AAC&U Annual Meeting & e-Portfolio Forum
In 2016, ten colleges and universities were recognized as the inaugural recipients of the Excellence in Assessment Designation (EIA), sponsored by several organizations, including AAC&U and NILOA. The EIA recognizes institutions for their efforts in intentional integration of campus-level learning outcomes assessment, and focuses on campus processes and uses of assessment outcomes.

11. About Mills College
Liberal arts college located in Northern California (San Francisco Bay Area) 850 Undergraduate/550 Graduate Students
92 full-time faculty
41 undergraduate majors
14 graduate programs
Accredited by WASC
U.S. News Ranked 5th Regional University in the West and 1st among colleges and universities in the West that provide high academic quality at a good price.

12. Why We Pursued the EIA
Were in process of moving to a new phase in our assessment program and excited about the changes we were making.
Impressed by the sponsors of the award.
We wanted to gain from the self-reflection required to apply.
We saw the opportunity as one that could provide us with validation/constructive feedback.

13. Student Learning Assessment Had Begun a New Phase
Assessment Committee reconfigured to include both administrative (library, career services, center for academic excellence, division of student life, student administrative services) and faculty leaders
Focus on the students
Our many different strands of learning goals (mission, general education, programs, co-curricular guiding principles) were very unwieldy, complex and hard for students to understand.
Creating a more cohesive and streamlined vision of learning goals across the college to make it easier for students to access/understand their learning in and out of the classroom, and make it easier for them to articulate what they are learning through their Mills degree.

14. Inspiration and Sharpening of Focus
WASC’s guidelines for Accreditation was revised to include a requirement to report on the “Meaning, Quality and Integrity of the Degree (MQID)”
New Core Curriculum Proposed
Assessment Director attended the Assessment Leadership Academy (put on by WASC) and was inspired by the readings and discussions.
Learning as central to college’s mission
Focus on the learning that is essential for all students
Learning supported by both curricular and co-curricular programs

15. Inspiration and a Sharpening of Focus
Inspiration to sharpen our focus and simplify our process
Create a set of goals that establish the “meaning of the degree”
Learning as central and most important metric for success
Look for overlap in learning: focus on the overlaps
Connect both curricular and co-curricular programs in supporting learning goals
Students need to know and understand the learning goals
John Tagg: The Learning Paradigm College
Paradigm shift away from a focus on teaching provided and toward a focus on the learning produced.
“The quality of learning an institution promotes is what gives that institution meaning and value.” (John Tagg, 2003)
“Faculty members, administrators, and staff must…take responsibility for student learning as the goal and product of our work.” (Barr and Tagg, 1995)
Inspiration to move us in the direction of providing a lens through which the entire campus community can see what they are doing and need to continue to do to support the learning we consider essential for our students.
Wasc handbook:
Meaning
“Addressing questions about what the institution expects all its students to know and be able to do upon graduation…”
“Ensuring alignment among all the elements [of the educational experience]”
“Developing the language to communicate clearly about the degree—what it demands and what it offers—to internal and external audiences.”
Quality and Integrity
“a rich, coherent, and challenging educational experience”
“assurance that students consistently meet the standards of performance that the institution has set for that experience”
Improving Quality in American Higher Education:
Draws on findings from the Measuring College Learning (MCL) Project.
Any single measure of student learning should be a part of a larger holistic assessment plan.
Focused on articulating a limited number of essential concepts and competencies
Recognition that content matters insofar as it serves as a building block for more complex forms of thinking.
Intersection of concepts (theoretical understandings and ways of thinking) and competencies (skills to engage effectively in the discipline)
Importance of developing both discipline-specific and more generic competencies (e.g. LEAP and DQP)
Connection between learning within disciplines and building skills for the workforce.
Importance of Career Services participation in assessment

16. Student Learning Assessment’s New Phase
The “Meaning” Project
Define the “meaning” of a Mills degree in terms of a single set of learning objectives for and understood by all Mills students
Align all curricular and co-curricular programs with these learning objectives
Design and implement a new institutional assessment plan focused on these objectives and supported by all areas of the college in alignment with the learning goals being assessed.

17. Defining the “Meaning” of the Degree
New Core Curriculum used as basis
Inclusive of graduate programs (specialized knowledge)
Relevant to departments and programs represented on the Assessment Committee
LEAP and DQP important resources
WASC MQID workshop provided additional ideas
Discussions with key faculty outside the Assessment Committee
Tia McNair (AAC&U) on campus: supported need for single set of goals; faculty listened
Iterate…iterate…iterate
2 years to complete draft document for faculty review/consensus
Key faculty: choose those who have the respect of a majority of the faculty

18. The “Meaning” of a Mills Degree
Foundational Skills
Written & Oral Communication
Quantitative Literacy
Information Literacy
Critical Analysis
Leadership, Global and Social Responsibility
Race, Gender, Power
Languages other than English
International Perspectives
Community Engagement
Leadership
Specialized Knowledge
Specific Majors
Graduate Programs
Collaborative, Innovative & Experiential Learning
Creativity, Innovation and Experimentation
Scientific Inquiry
Teamwork and Problem Solving

19. Alignment
Responsibility of programs to continue the “Core” learning throughout the students’ educational experience
One class won’t fully develop students’ proficiency
Learning must be supported by major disciplines as well
Assessed at the senior level
Connections between department/program learning goals and the institutional learning goals need to be explicit
Each Academic and Co-curricular area asked to “map” to the new institutional learning goals in Taskstream
Result will be campus-wide “map” of student learning
Can review map for gaps in the delivery and suggest additional areas of support

20. Key takeaways, learnings, or points for consideration
Students need to be able to understand and articulate the learning they achieve.
Assessment needs to be both meaningful and manageable: big picture focus
Look at where learning overlaps; don’t try to measure everything
Connecting co-curricular areas with learning assessment yields surprises: most weren’t thinking of their work in terms of student learning but were excited to see the connections; resulted in their feeling more connected with the broader campus
Alignment of the learning taking place in courses with the learning goals established is an essential step
What seems simple takes a long time
Vision needs to be restated often: Don’t assume constituents understand
You are never as much of an expert as someone who comes from off campus, i.e., invite someone to campus to look at what you are doing.
Our example: Tia McNair from AAC&U
Adds new vitality and authenticity to the project
By sharpening our focus we will know what we need to know with less effort, time and resources.
Looking at the data will tell us what we need to do in terms of not only improving learning, but also our processes for assessing the learning.

21. Questions?

22. Contact Me
Alice Knudsen, EdD Director of Institutional Research, Planning & Academic Assessment

24. Dean, Curriculum and Assessment Community College of Baltimore County
Dr. Rosalie Mince
Dean, Curriculum and Assessment
Community College of Baltimore County

25. Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC)
Ranked among the top providers of undergraduate education, workforce development, technology training and life enrichment in the Baltimore Metropolitan area.
Mission is to provide an accessible, affordable and high quality education that prepares students for transfer and career success, strengthens the regional workforce, and enriches the community.
Carnegie Classification=very large community college. CCBC educates nearly 63,000 people each year.
Nationally recognized as a leader in innovative learning strategies.

26. The Value of External Review
National leader since 2000:
Selected as a Vanguard Learning College by the League for Innovation in the Community College. Similar to EIA in that one is goal to share best practices and encourage excellence.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education Accreditation Exemplary Practice
Community College Futures Assembly Bellwether Awards
Council for Higher Education Accreditation Award for Institutional Progress in Student Learning Outcomes
5-Stage Assessment Model for all types of assessment: course, program, general education, and institutional.

27. 5-Stage Design
Designing, proposing, and externally validating the assessment project.
Implementing the design, and collecting and analyzing the data.
Redesigning based on stage two results to improve student learning.
Implementing revisions and reassessing student learning.
Analyzing and reporting results.

28. Goals of Assessment Ensure the best conditions for learning
Encourage best practices
Inspire creativity and innovation
Assessment is a shared responsibility that is dependent upon a climate of cooperation and focused efforts to improve.
CCBC has a culture for assessing institutional effectiveness and emphasizes the use of results.

29. Support for Assessment Projects
Outcomes Associate
General Education Assessment Teams (GrEAT) Coordinator
Dean of Curriculum and Assessment
Planning, Research and Evaluation Director
Learning Outcomes Assessment Advisory Board
Support for everything--from Orientation to the Final Report
Annual Assessment Report

30. Learning Outcomes Assessment Advisory Board
Members from all major divisions of the college.
Communication, networking, and professional development.
Assessment Appreciation Day
Partnerships with other college-wide groups to support initiatives.
National Best Practices
Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) and VALUE rubrics
Voluntary Frameworks of Accountability
Achieving the Dream
Community College Research Center
Excellence in Assessment

31. EIA Feedback/Next Steps
Resist the tendency to only focus inwardly and include those who already embrace assessment.
Use various means to communicate outcomes to students.
Implement strategic objectives to be more transparent.
Maintain strong partnerships with four-year, transfer institutions.
Assessment Institute: 3-day intensive training workshop.

32. Lessons Learned Fight complacency. Apply for the EIA designation!
Be mindful of including all constituents, especially adjunct faculty, students, and external constituents in assessment work.
Embrace the value of assessment-continuous improvement.
Keep assessment meaningful. Use the results of assessment.
Recognize, value and reward people who complete assessment projects.
Assessment must be faculty-driven, risk-free and externally validated.

33. Final Thoughts…
We undertook the challenge of completing the EIA Designation application in the way that we hope everyone conducts assessment- embracing the need for continuous improvement and with the goals of affirming what is going well, unearthing what needs further attention, and making a tangible plan to implement necessary changes.

34. Capella University – Case Study
Jeff Grann, Ph.D.
Academic Director of Assessment & Learning Analytics
@jeffgrann
Time: minutes
1)      Introduce yourself and your campus

35. Capella University – Fact Sheet
Get latest

36. Why EIA? Test ourselves Improve Highlight innovative practices
Focus on mission and educational philosophy
Rigorous NILOA Transparency Framework criteria
Improve
Cross-functional self-study
Expert external feedback
Highlight innovative practices
Competency-based education
Fully-embedded assessment model
Competency map
2)      Share what attracted you to the EIA program and/or prompted you to apply
Adult learners, Authentic assessment, Competency-based education, Direct path

37. Competency-Based Education

38. Higher Education Conundrum
Employer
How do we connect the conferral of a degree with the ability to apply relevant, in-demand, employable skills? ?
University
Position
Degree Program
Employers seek skilled workers
Universities confer degrees
Desired Skills & Abilities
Course
for completing a series of courses
with industry’ relevant & current skills
Demonstrated Competence
Activity
in which students learn
practical experience
Performance History
Grade
and are assessed
and a record of accomplishment

39. Competency-Based Education
Industry Alignment
Employer
University
Position
Outcomes
Degree Program
Employers seek skilled workers
with industry’ relevant & current skills
practical experience
and a record of accomplishment
Universities confer degrees
for completing a series of courses
in which students learn
and are assessed
Desired Skills & Abilities
Competencies
Course
Demonstrated Competence
Criteria
Activity
Mention capstone courses and Fully-embedded assessment model (FEAM)
Performance History
Faculty Judgments
Grade
Graduate Preparedness

40. Fully-embedded Assessment Model

41. Fully-embedded Assessment Model

42. Transition connects the dots to digital credentials via competency map.

46. Digital credentials are making competencies visible and career relevant.

47. Lessons Learned Self-study can promote org. development
Engage the campus
Independent reviewer
Feedback helps prioritize enhancements
3)      What lessons learned or bits of advice or wisdom would you like to share with other campuses that are on their own journeys to excellent campus-wide assessment?

48. Lessons from Inaugural Campus Applications
Narrative construction – talk about *why* you do what you do
Campus *application* team vs. Individuals and groups regularly engaged in assessment activities
Designed to intentionally address “when it’s everyone’s job, it’s no one’s job” syndrome
Self-study should engage broad constituents but application written by a few
Engagement with non-academic staff and external stakeholders
Use the rubric for self-evaluation, determine institutional readiness
In reflecting on the first year of the EIA designation, reviewers and sponsors noted several points where applicants appeared to struggle in compiling their application narrative.. Some of these areas were due to lack of clarity in the application guidelines, which we’ve attempted to rectify in these guidelines. Some areas, similarly, were due to misalignment between the evidence we asked institutions to provide and the evidence our reviewers said would be most useful to evaluate a campus. We’ve likewise made adjustments to these guidelines to address those areas, as well as clarifying the scoring rubric to clarify the essential elements of each component. The following additional guidance is offered to applicants for the 2017 Designations in hopes of helping them craft successful narratives based on evaluations of the 2016 inaugural applications.
Reviewers noted that many institutions seemed to struggle with presenting a cohesive and concise narrative regarding their campus-level assessment process. The difficulty came from making an active shift away from simply listing processes and/or activities to focusing on explaining why the processes in place on their campus mattered for their specific setting or students. Providing appropriate background context for assessment practices is important for the reviewers and others to understand why the institution engages with and approaches assessment in the manner it does. Many campuses defaulted to providing lists of various disconnected activities without connecting or aligning the activities into a cohesive narrative and describing or explaining the relationships between the various parts. Applicants are strongly encouraged to approach the narrative as a representation of the collective whole of assessment activities, one that is placed within a specific institutional context, and to provide that context explicitly within their narrative when necessary. It is not enough to say that an institution is engaged in a particular assessment practice without articulating why that practice is important within that context.
The 2016 guidelines included an expectation for a large and diverse campus application team to engage in the self-study process that we feel is best to aid campuses in preparing their EIA designation application narrative. Unfortunately, we placed too much emphasis on representation within an application team without addressing our true intent: that a broad and diverse group of campus committees and individuals are actively and substantively engaged in on-going assessment activities. The application guidelines have been altered for 2017 to make it clear that while an ideal campus assessment plan will be inclusive of a broad and diverse set of constituents, it is not a requirement that all of those parties engage directly in creating the campus application narrative. However, we would encourage the team charged with crafting the campus application narrative to be inclusive of various audiences in some substantive way. This expectation is an intentional effort to address a barrier to integrated approaches to assessment—that only one office or a few individuals are in charge of and responsible for supporting the entire campus enterprise. The majority of 2016 EIA applicants revealed in their narrative that they struggled to engage various groups in their campus-level assessment processes a consistent and connected manner. For instance, either student affairs were not involved in assessment at a campus-level or they had a separate approach not connected with the academic side of the house that was made clear in the application process. Further, few campuses reported actively engaging adjunct or part-time faculty, students, alumni, receiving institutions, and employers in their assessment work. These areas were subsequently identified in the Reflection and Growth/Improvement Plans, with many applicants stating intentions to make better connections with these groups moving forward Using the application process as a means to think collectively as a campus about strategies to better address areas of disconnect proved to be a strong use of the EIA application self-study process.
Finally, we heard from many other campuses that reported they used the EIA evaluation rubric and application materials as a means to examine institutional readiness to apply for a Designation or to review current campus-level assessment processes. This is an important and meaningful use of the EIA designation materials and one that can help identify priorities or current needs within an assessment process. Indeed, one of the primary goals of the EIA Designations is to help foster meaningful communication and discussion on campuses regarding the creation of scaffolded and horizontally integrated assessment practices in order to create more cohesive learning environments for all our students.

49. Thank you to our Presenters!
Dr. Rosalie Mince Community College of Baltimore County Dr. Jeff Grann Capella University Dr. Alice Knudsen Mills College
Decline in need for faculty development against it still being a top concern perhaps = artifact of how we correlated these issues