1. Moving Beyond Assessment for Accountability to Assessment for Program Value

2. SACSCOC Response to March Monitoring Report
Data for new assessment plans was not available for reviewers.
No documentation for new student learning assessment plans or improvements made based on the results of the assessments.
Great variance in the reporting of data by the colleges and schools and some presented student learning outcomes which do not appear to be measurable.

3. Period of Accountability: 2011-12 Process
All educational programs required a SLO Assessment Plan and Report with at least one direct measure for each student learning outcome;
Most programs submitted Revised SLO Assessment Plans and Reports at start of fall 2011;
Programs with missing data for one or more SLOs had to collect data by the end of fall 2011;

4. Period of Accountability: 2011-12 Process (cont.)
An Action Plan and schedule for collecting data during spring semester was required for programs unable to meet the fall 2001 deadline;
All programs were required to develop an Assessment Map for the collection of SLO data;
A Interim SLO Assessment Plan and Report was due February 1, 2012; and
Written feedback was provided to the department chairs by the Assessment Leads upon a review of plans.

5. Period of Accountability: Benefits of the Process Used
Use of a common template addressed variability in reporting across colleges and helped departments understand the information needed in a SLO Assessment Plan and Report;
The summer 2011 review of all SLOs Assessment Plans and Reports and the required Revised Reports addressed SACSCOC concerns;

6. Period of Accountability: Benefits of the Process Used (cont.)
The Interim SLO Assessment Plan and Report ensured that we had assessment data to report in our March 2012 SACSCOC Report; and
The institution was removed from monitoring status and received reaccreditation.

7. Period of Accountability: Shortcomings of Process
Many faculty felt that the SLO Assessment Plans and Reports were artificial, not meaningful, and for accountability purposes only;
There was little time for reflection and discussion of the results and changes;
The model was a one size fits all; and
The process was onerous and time consuming.

8. Shift to Period of Program Value: Benefits of the New Process
Encourages reflection;
Encourages collaborative discussion;
Results inform what faculty want to know about students, value and can use;
Allows flexibility in decisions about what to assess, how to assess it, how to review/share assessment data with program faculty, what to improve upon, and how to improve it.

9. Shift to Period of Program Value: Current Process
OAA staff will continue to review and provide written feedback; and
OAA staff will continue to meet with department chairs and faculty to listen to concerns, discuss written feedback, answer questions, and provide professional development.