1. Assessment Cycle California Lutheran University Deans’ Council February 6, 2006

2. Assessment Cycle Strategic Plan 2014 Assessment Symposium Program Review California Lutheran University Dedicated to educating leaders for a global society who are strong in character and judgment, confident in their identity and vocation, and committed to service and justice. Core Values Excellence Service Diversity Respect Responsibility Courage Pursuit of Truth

3. Assessment Symposium Assessment Cycle Strategic Plan 2014 Assessment Symposium Program Review

4. Purpose Report assessment evidence and ways in which the evidence was and will be used to improve student learning and the quality of our service. Assessment Symposium

5. Guiding Principles  Simple  Meaningful Assessment Symposium

6. Benefits  Sharing of research and learnings (e.g. Program Review)  Engages various members of the University Community  Listen, learn, and appreciate others Assessment Symposium

7. Benefits  Supportive environment via roundtable format  Encourages assessment to become part of our practice  Research in Action! Assessment Symposium

8. Features  5 step model  5 – 10 minute presentation  One goal  Standardized PowerPoint format  Review and practice sessions Assessment Symposium

9. 5 Step Model 1. What goal was set? 2. What research design / measure was used? 3. What data were collected? 4. What emerged from data (analysis)? 5. What recommendations are made? Measurable goals set? Assessment Symposium

10. Examples Academics  Program Review including External Review  External Review only Operations Assessment Symposium

11. External Review Assessment Goal  Review of Foundations Courses and Student Teaching Seminar conducted by an external university team  Purpose: to investigate Repetition of conceptsRepetition of concepts If “diversity” met NCATE standard 4If “diversity” met NCATE standard 4 If field experiences met NCATE standard 4If field experiences met NCATE standard 4 If Foundation learning outcomes aligned with Student TeachingIf Foundation learning outcomes aligned with Student Teaching If exit survey provided data for improvementIf exit survey provided data for improvement

12. Research Design and Data Collection  Content analysis of syllabi including candidate learning outcomes and anchor activities  Analysis of exit survey  Interviews with Dean and Foundations Coordinator

13. Analysis of Data  Findings Syllabi content analysis shows appropriate content Syllabi content analysis shows appropriate content “Diversity” depth is sufficient “Diversity” depth is sufficient Field experiences appropriate for Foundations courses Field experiences appropriate for Foundations courses Appropriate alignment of Foundations and Student Teaching Seminar learning outcomes Appropriate alignment of Foundations and Student Teaching Seminar learning outcomes Exit survey should be strengthened Exit survey should be strengthened

14. Future Goals  Goals for upcoming year: Continue to align online and onsite syllabi and anchor activities Continue to align online and onsite syllabi and anchor activities Distribute specific TPE responsibility between Foundation courses Distribute specific TPE responsibility between Foundation courses Specify school demographics for Field Activities to ensure experience in diversity Specify school demographics for Field Activities to ensure experience in diversity Gather exit portfolio data to help guide program improvement decisions Gather exit portfolio data to help guide program improvement decisions

15. Operations Assessment Goal Reduce the number of complaints received from credential students

16. Research Design  Measures Used to Collect Data Toward Goal Progress Established categories for complaints and recorded data daily Established categories for complaints and recorded data daily Resulting from previous Data Analysis: Created position of Student Service Coordinator Created position of Student Service Coordinator Provided additional training in customer service and technical areas Provided additional training in customer service and technical areas Implemented the development of staff professional portfolios Implemented the development of staff professional portfolios

17. Data Collection Results

18. Analysis of Data  Fewer complaints received in areas with closer proximity of a credential supervisor.  Mis-advisement has the most room for improvement; most related to changes or confusion about state or university regulations or policies.  Fewer complaints were received in locations where professional development was regularly utilized.  Greater number of student-centered initiatives and fewer complaints received from areas where staff had developed professional portfolios.

19. Future Goals  Develop, implement and measure additional ways to communicate policies in order to decrease “mis-advisement” complaints.  Determine the relationship between complaints and participation in professional development and proximity of credential supervision provided.  Design and implement staff professional portfolios state-wide.

20. Assessment Symposium  May 2006, a.m.  Format Slide 1: Introduction Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 2005-06 Goal Assessment Design Data Collection Analysis of Data 2006 - 07 Goal What goal was set? What aspects of student learning / service will be assessed? Identify measures (instrument / tool) used to provide data on progress toward goal. What process was used? What data were collected? What themes emerged? What was learned? Recommendations for growth based on analysis  What measurable goal is set for 2006 - 07?

21. Program Review Assessment Cycle Strategic Plan 2014 Assessment Symposium Program Review

22.  In Progress: 5 reviews completed Spring 2006 5 reviews completed Spring 2006 Revised Template, incorporating Assessment Plan into Program Review Revised Template, incorporating Assessment Plan into Program Review Program Review Handbook Program Review Handbook March Workshops for upcoming Reviews March Workshops for upcoming Reviews  External Reviewers  Internal Reviewers

23. External Reviewers  Credentials  External perspective Lutheran link Aspiring link California National  Study components of program through a series of specific review objectives or answer questions as prepared by program faculty. Program Review

24. External Reviewers  Receive copies of the Program Review Report data in advance  May be asked to respond to questions such as: Do references in syllabi adequately cover current knowledge in the field? Do references in syllabi adequately cover current knowledge in the field? Do CVs of faculty demonstrate appropriate qualifications for teaching in this program? Do CVs of faculty demonstrate appropriate qualifications for teaching in this program? Does the curriculum demonstrate an undergraduate / graduate level of instruction? Does the curriculum demonstrate an undergraduate / graduate level of instruction? Are assessments appropriate? Are assessments appropriate? Program Review

25. External Reviewers  Complete a site visit and conduct interviews with administrators, faculty, students, employers, and alumni, as well as review facilities. Program Review

26. External Reviewers’ Report  Three to five pages  Prepare preliminary report on-site  Responds to the objectives or questions  Includes three parts: general comments, singles out features of the program that merit commendations, and makes recommendations where there is room for improvement Program Review

27. Internal Reviewers  California Lutheran University faculty members from outside the college or school of the program under review  Assessment Committee, Assessment Director, Associate Provost, Provost, GPEC, … Program Review

28. Assessment Cycle Strategic Plan 2014 Assessment Symposium Program Review California Lutheran University Dedicated to educating leaders for a global society who are strong in character and judgment, confident in their identity and vocation, and committed to service and justice. CoreValues Excellence Service Diversity Respect Responsibility Courage Pursuit of Truth

29. Assessment Cycle California Lutheran University Deans’ Council February 6, 2006 Halyna Kornuta Director of Assessment and Educational Effectiveness