1. Preparing for the NWCCU 10-year Self-Study
Faculty In-Service
June 6, 2005

2. We have achieved a lot! For many departments this was a new endeavor
Awareness that those areas with secondary accreditation have been at theirs for a long time.
Now, prepare for the Self-Study.

3. Time Line Jan. 2001 July 2001 Oct. 2001 Notified Notified – of
Accreditation
Deferred
Notified of
Five Year
Visit
Locate
Office of
Assessment
in OAA
With
AVPAA
1st
In-service:
Department
Assessment
Plans

4. 1st In-Service:
Mission Statement
Initial Learning Outcomes

5. Time Line Jan. 2001 July 2001 Oct. 2001 April 2002 June 2002 2nd
In-service:
3 step
model
Notified –
Accreditation
Deferred
Notified of
Five Year
Visit
Visit on
Assessment
Locate
Office of
Assessment
in OAA
With
AVPAA
1st
In-service:
Department
Assessment
Plans
Five Year
Visit

6. 2nd In-Service 3 Step Model Mission Statement Outcomes & Objectives
Criteria & Procedure

7. Time Line Jan. 2001 July 2001 Oct. 2001 April 2002 June 2002 June 2003
2nd
In-service:
3 step
model
Notified –
Accreditation
Deferred
Notified of
Five Year
Visit
Visit on
Assessment
Locate
Office of
Assessment
in OAA
With
AVPAA
1st
In-service:
Department
Assessment
Plans
Five Year
Visit
3rd
In-Service:
5 step
model

8. 3rd In-Service 5 Step Model Mission Statement Outcomes & Objectives
Criteria & Procedures
Assessment Results
Closing the Loop

9. Time Line Jan. 2001 July 2001 Oct. 2001 April 2002 June 2002 June 2003
2nd
In-service:
3 step
model
4th
In-service:
Peggy
Maki
Notified –
Accreditation
Deferred
Notified of
Five Year
Visit
Visit on
Assessment
Locate
Office of
Assessment
in OAA
With
AVPAA
1st
In-service:
Department
Assessment
Plans
Five Year
Visit
3rd
In-Service:
5 step
model

10. 4th In-Service Peggy Maki Learning Outcomes Coherence
Meaningful to students

11. Assessment Activities - Departmental
Major Field Test
Exit Surveys
Performance Assessment
Portfolios
Language Testing

12. Assessment Activities – University
Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP)
College Student Survey (CSS)
National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Faculty Study of Student Engagement (FSSE)
HERI Faculty Survey
Course Evaluations

13. Expectations for Educational Assessment: Policy 2.2, Standard 2
Does educational assessment encompass all our offerings?
Is assessment done regularly?
Is assessment integrated into our overall planning?
Are the expected learning outcomes published for each degree program and certificate?
Is there documentation that indicates students have achieved the desired outcomes?
Does your evidence indicate that assessment leads to improvement of teaching and learning?

14. General Educational Assessment
How do your department’s G.E. courses provide a “general” approach to your discipline where there is greater emphasis on “breadth” rather than “depth”?
How do your G.E. courses connect to the institutional mission and goals?
Are your G.E. courses appropriate for their indicated level of instruction (freshman/sophomore/junior)?
How is this determined?

15. G.E. Assessment (cont.)
What identifiable outcomes do your G.E. courses have in the following areas:
Written and oral communication
Quantitative Reasoning
Critical Analysis
Information Literacy
In what ways do your G.E. offerings contributed to the over all education of an SPU student?

16. How do you know?
What is your evidence?

17. Departmental Assessment
Are your departmental/school goals sufficiently established to provide adequate guidance?
Are the indicators of success for your program adequately identified, articulated and conveyed to students?
How does this occur?
Are your intended outcomes realized?
How do you know?
What is your evidence?
How is your assessment data systematically gathered, analyzed and evaluated?
How have you utilized your results to ensure improved student learning?