THE ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

There are eight dimensions on which institutions can evaluate their progress in assessment. Institutions are asked to evaluate their progress using a three-point system. An institution would be Level 1 on a dimension if it had not yet implemented a process for collecting data on student learning. An institution would be Level 2 on a dimension if it had collected data on student learning, but had not yet used that data to inform curriculum and pedagogy. Level 3 institutions are defined as possessing "maturing stages of continuous improvement." The key feature of Level 3 is that, for a particular dimension, an institution uses the data on student learning to make needed curricular and pedagogical improvements-often called the "feedback loop." Below I list the eight dimensions on which institutions are asked to critique their assessment program.

I. Institutional Culture

a. Collective/Shared Values: There exists a shared understanding of the purposes, advantages, and limitations of assessing student learning on campus.

b. Mission: The institutional statements of mission and purpose indicate the value that the institution places on student learning.

II. Shared Responsibility

a. Faculty: Faculty members are knowledgeable about and committed to the assessment of student learning on campus.

b. Administration and Board: Academic officers and members of the college's board demonstrate their commitment to the assessment of student learning.

c. Students: The institution effectively communicates with students about the purposes of assessment. Students are knowledgeable about the institution's assessment program.

III. Institutional Support

a. Resources: Resources are made available to the personnel in charge of institutional assessment such that they can implement the assessment program on campus.

b. Structures: The institution has the assessment committee integrated into campus governance. The institution also has an organizational system of collecting and accessing data across the campus.

IV. Efficacy of Assessment: Student learning is central to the mission of the institution, and faculty and administrators show their commitment to improving student learning.

OUR SELF-CRITIQUE

In general, we view our assessment program as operating at Level 2 on some dimensions and Level 3 on other dimensions. Overall, the Assessment Committee believes we are doing many things well with respect to assessment of student learning. We are clearly ahead of where we were at the time of Hope's previous site visit and doing many things well. We have also identified areas of our assessment program that need improvement. We list below the recommendations we have identified through our self-study. These goals represent what the HLC considers to be Level 3 criteria. Where appropriate, these goals are best accomplished by the college units charged with such action. The Committee believes that the college's programs and departments are the units that can best assess student learning, and the Assessment Committee is best suited to provide expertise and financial support.

• Tie college decision-making to assessment findings: Linking assessment findings to institutional decision-making is one example of closing the feedback loop. In short, if we (the college) collect information about student learning, we ought to make decisions based on what we find. This means that all academic units will be served well by reviewing the goals in their major or their program, then making decisions about how to proceed based on the evidence that students are achieving those goals. If part of a program/major is working, resources should be put into sustaining it. If part of a program/major is not working, resources should be put into modifying it such that it better serves the department.

• Assist departments in the assessment of their majors: The Assessment Committee has at least two representatives from each of the four divisions. Next year the Committee hopes to be of service to departments who want to improve assessment of student learning. The Committee has done well implementing several campus-wide projects, such as writing assessment (see other article in this issue), National Survey of Student Engagement, assessment of general education, and the Senior Exit Survey. Helping departments with assessment of student learning has become somewhat of an untended garden. We hope next year to be of greater assistance to academic departments in this regard.

• Communicating with students: The campus should be more effective in communicating with students about why we collect assessment data. More importantly, it seems crucial for the college to make students aware of how we are using the data from the assessment instruments they complete to improve the quality of the education we provide.

• Create an office of institutional research OIR): In financial times such as these, when we are all asked to make sacrifices, anything that involves the verb "create" is probably not going to be met with rose petals on the walkways. However, the absence of an OIR creates difficulty with coordination as well as difficulty having enough staff to complete certain institutional tasks. I have not studied this issue in depth, but it would be helpful to compare how we do institutional research (i.e., organization, resources) compared to other schools our size.

• Move toward assessment that emphasizes standards of student achievement: According to the HLC, one of the qualities that characterizes an institution with a "mature" assessment program is the creation of standards. In other words, departments are encouraged to articulate exit outcomes to which all majors in that department should strive. As these exit outcomes are measured, departments can use that information to make curricular changes so as to increase the number of students who are meeting the standard. This is currently done often in academic departments that have external accrediting agencies, because such benchmarking is part of external accreditation in an academic discipline. However, I don't believe that this approach need only to be confined to externally accredited majors.

  We hope to use these recommendations as a template for future assessment initiatives. Self-evaluation is a useful tool, but only used in conjunction with other techniques. One of those techniques is external evaluation, and the Assessment Committee looks forward to the site visitors' evaluation of our assessment program. We also welcome your comments on the progress that the Assessment Committee is making toward improving student learning on campus. (I would be happy to share the full text review of our assessment program with anyone who is interested. This document will also appear as an appendix in our NCA self-study report.