1. Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research Assessment Review Committee Report College of Human Ecology Ginger Woodard March 3, 2014 1 2013 Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research

2. Mentoring/Review Process ARC members were selected (attempted to get one from each unit in the college; 5 of 6 were represented in final group) One ARC withdrew Reallocated ARCs to programs using remaining ARC members and assigning related reviews within one unit all to the associate dean ARC members went through training with IPAR Assessment Staff ARC members who were new to assessment met with me to discuss specific assessment questions before beginning reviews ARC members conducted reviews individually, Some would talk with one another during the review process if they had questions about an assessment before completing the review 22013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

3. 2012-13 Component Data DevelopingAcceptableProficient Outcome203034 Means of Assessment 295136 Criteria for Success 234250 Results334932 Actions Taken473532 Follow-Up to Actions Taken 752317 32013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

4. Data Visualization 42013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

5. 2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” (CDFR) Medical Family Therapy – PhD Outcome: 05. Expertise in MedFT - Demonstrate expertise in a specific area of MedFT Means of Assessment: We will focus research primarily in the areas of clinical and translational research in rural health care, racial/ethnic health disparities, diabetes and obesity, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, sensorimotor defects, quality care, and patient safety. A. CDFR 7409 (This course was not offered in Fall 2011/Spring 2012) i. SO4: To analyze available empirical evidence related to chronic illness and disability across the lifespan. 1. As measured by: a. Paper rubric b. Class facilitation c. Discussion questions 52013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

6. B. CDFR 8910 Clinical or Research i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. See Plan of Action C. CDFR 8911 Clinical or Research i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. See Plan of Action D. CDFR 8912 Clinical or Research i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. See Plan of Action E. CDFR 9000 i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. To be determined with advisor 62010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

7. Criteria for Success: –Demonstrating expertise in a specific area of MedFT requires that students achieve a 90% to pass or pass with honors on each student outcome related to this student learning outcome. 2012-2013 Results: a. CDFR 7409 i. SO4: To analyze available empirical evidence related to chronic illness and disability across the lifespan. 1. As measured by: a. Paper rubric: 75% Passed with Honors; 25% Passed b. Class facilitation: 100% Passed with Honors c. Discussion questions: 75% Passed with Honors; 25% Passed 72010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

8. b. CDFR 8910 Clinical or Research i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. 67% Passed with Honors, 33% Passed c. CDFR 8911 Clinical or Research i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. 67% Passed with Honors, 33% Passed d. CDFR 8912 Clinical or Research i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. 67% Passed with Honors, 33% Passed e. CDFR 9000 i. SO’s 1. As measured by: a. 67% Passed with Honors, 33% Passed 82010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

9. Actions Taken (based on analysis of results): Based on the fact that we met our criteria for success, the previous actions have been continued for this year. The program continued to require a dissertation as part of the program requirements as a culmination of the outcomes described under this SLO. In addition, students were encouraged to present at local, state, or national levels in their area of interest. Seven MedFT graduates were invited to participate as authors in a MedFT textbook. Initiative/Change/Strategy Implemented for Program/Unit improvement: –In terms of how assessment is reported, because every outcome for the program is so detailed and inclusive of multiple measures, the unit is working to narrow specific outcomes and measures for TracDat to make this easier to review and provide feedback for those outside the program area. 92010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

10. Substantive Changes (For example: All new Outcomes/MOAs or a reorganization of the assessment unit) Program/Unit: Nutrition (MS) Description of Changes: –Outcomes previously had in TracDat were not measuring actual student learning outcomes or learning outcomes they wanted students to achieve –Faculty divided into 3 groups and each group drafted a new program learning outcome. –They met over course of a semester with groups bringing outcomes back to larger faculty group for discussion and “tweaking” of outcome, means, and criterion. –Have already analyzed results on a couple of the new outcomes from Fall 2014 semester and are currently looking at results for others. Will review results to determine if they are getting the type of information they had expected and that answers outcome – or whether need to further tweak the means. 102013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

11. Rubric and Review Process Feedback Some ARC members provided little to no comments making the revisions difficult for the unit now. Next year I would hold an additional meeting with the ARCs at the beginning and emphasize the importance of comments for the units. All ARCs do not review to the same ‘level’ or ‘degree’ – true across the college and university. Would be helpful if we could establish a more “even” review. –I.e., especially what is deficient and proficient? ARC responsibility after the review – faculty feel ‘on the spot’ when faculty from another unit corner them about the review they have given them, especially when it is not a very good one 112013 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research