1. Assessment Committee Meeting Continuous Program Improvement
DL2/706

2. Goals for the meeting
Understand why a new conception of “assessment” is necessary at NYIT.
Discuss a new assessment framework – continuous program improvement (CPI) – that addresses overall program health, relevance, and viability, and that works for administrative, as well as academic programs.
Discuss the timeline and process for rolling out the new framework.

3. I. Why a change in the annual assessment process is necessary
Changing MSCHE accreditation standards and process are the main reasons for the need to a change our annual assessment process.
In short, PLO assessment needs to continue, but needs to be situated within a broader education context, and reflect all stakeholders’ endeavors in the learning process.
Furthermore, few at NYIT would argue that the current process adds significant value.

4. MSCHE Expects:
Show Institutional improvement over time indicated by financial sustainability metrics and students achievement metrics.
-Trends rather than bright lines
-Compare trends to aggregated peer-group.
Report on major initiatives that are expected to lead to improvements. In the context of initiatives, report what you learned from assessment, and how results informed the initiatives.
All of this done in the context of institutional mission.

5. Annual Institutional Updates
The 8 Year New Process
Annual Institutional Updates
•Financial and Student Achievement data elements
•Responses to recommendations (if needed)
Opportunities/Input for Institutional Improvement
Midpoint Review
•Cumulative Peer Review of AIU data
•Feedback from the Commission
Self-Study Evaluation
•Campus engagement in self-study process that culminates with an onsite team visit by peer evaluators

6. Rethinking assessment: “Student Achievement-” Academic Progress
Mandatory
Retention Rates
IPEDS Graduation Rates
Mean Time to Graduation
And, of course, Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
Optional
% Credits Completed/Attempted
% Pell
% Minority
% Developmental
% 1st Generation
% Non-Traditional
% Part-Time
Self-Identified

7. Rethinking assessment: “Student Achievement-” Post-Institutional
Mandatory
Loan Default Rate
Loan Repayment Rate
Optional
1st time Pass Rates on Licensure Exams
Graduate Survey Satisfaction Results
Career Placement Rates
“First Destination” Survey Placement Rates
Transfer Rates
Self-Identified

8. Rethinking assessment: Financial Health Indicators- Documents
All
Most Recent Audited Financials
IPEDS Finance Data
Title IV Compliance Audits
Catalog/URL
Most Recent USDE Composite Score
If Applicable
Bond Rating for New Debt issued
Financial Audit from Parent Corporation

9. II. Proposal for the new assessment framework: Continuous Program Improvement (CIP)
At the heart of NYIT’s new framework
Using assessment data of all kinds to inform improvement initiatives at school/department/division level, and connect assessment with resource allocation within the context of NYIT’s strategic priorities. E.g., financial data, external research data, cutting edge technology or professional standard updates etc. High Impact Practices
Using assessments to demonstrate that the school/department/division achieves its mission and goals, which relates to students (learning & achievement), faculty/staff, and itself, which aligns with NYIT’s mission. e.g. DPT program goals & outcomes
Using assessments to demonstrate that the school/department/division achieves its aspirational goals (strategic goals) beyond in compliance with professional accreditation standards. Those goals are about what your school/department/division do to bring itself to “the next level” that will impact the students, faculty and the program’s quality. e.g., SOM Strategic Planning

10. Dean’s data set (internal)
Student credit hours
FTE faculty
FTE staff
Total revenue and expense, total margin
Three year enrollment trend.
DFW (drop-failure-withdrawal)rates
Three-year trend data: retention rate, graduation rate, and mean time to graduation.
School/college level graduation students survey (GSS) and NSSE
Others (requested by deans)

11. Dean’s data set (outside-environment)
Market data
Benchmarking to peer programs
Student/alumni/employer/client satisfaction data
Others?

12. III. New Framework (CPI) Implementation (the specifics of some items yet to be determined)
Timeline: a 4-year cycle with annual update to track its implementation?
Responsibilities & collaborations: School/department/division own it, and PADS facilitates the multi-year planning and assessment with data, and data analysis.
Tech platform to facilitate?
Presentation to a review team (who should be)

13. By the end of a CPI cycle, School/department/division presents-
Students’ learning improvement with evidence.
Students’ achievement improvement with evidence (graduation rate, retention rate, certification passing rate, job placement, advancement in education, career development and success…etc.)
Teaching effectiveness improvement (course evaluation scores, implementing best teaching practices, and, of course, student learning)
Scholarship productivity improvements
Curriculum improvement with evidence of updated syllabi.
Alumni and current student recommendations of NYIT.
Other evidence of improvement (e.g., rankings)…