Assessment Committee |
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
IU South Bend Assessment Committee - Assessment Rubric Results-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Goals |
Techniques |
Data |
Analysis |
Response |
Constituencies |
Record Keeping |
Total |
Business - Undergraduate |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
4 |
4 |
27.5 |
Criminal Justice |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
26 |
Theatre |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
Biology |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
3 |
26 |
Chemistry |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
22 |
Physics/Astronomy |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2.5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
16.5 |
Sociology |
3 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
23 |
English - Undergraduate |
3 |
3.5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
24.5 |
English - Graduate |
2.5 |
1.5 |
1 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
Master of Social Work |
2.5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
23.5 |
Average |
3.1 |
3.5 |
2.9 |
3.1 |
3.1 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
21 |
Rubric key: 1 – Undeveloped, 2- Developing, 3- Established, 4 - Exemplary
Assessment Evaluation Rubric Results 2006/07
|
Goals |
Techniques |
Data |
Analysis |
Response |
Constituencies |
Record Keeping |
Total |
Business - MBA |
3.5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
19.5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
13 |
|
Business MS-MIT |
4 |
3 |
3.5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
24.5 |
SPEA – MA Public Affairs |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
15 |
Psychology |
3.5 |
3 |
2 |
3.5 |
2 |
2 |
3.5 |
19.5 |
History |
3.5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
20.5 |
Women’s Studies |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
Liberal Studies |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
16 |
World Langauges |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
General Studies |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
Education – Graduate Programs |
3.5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
24.5 |
Education – Undergraduate Programs |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3.5 |
4 |
3.5 |
26 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
3 |
26.5 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
18 |
|
Average |
3.1 |
2.9 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
2.8 |
2.4 |
18 |
1 - Undeveloped, 1- Developing, 3 - Established, 4- Exemplary
Spring 2006, the Assessment Committee used a rubric for a second year to evaluate the third year assessment reviews. A summary of the results follow. The links lead to the individual program evaluations. As in 2005, the average scores for each of the categories fall between 2 - Developing and 3 - Established. Links lead to individual reports and evaluations.
Assessment Evaluation Rubric Results 2005/06
|
Goals |
Techniques |
Data |
Analysis |
Response |
Constituencies |
Record Keeping |
Total |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
14 |
|
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
|
3.5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
27 |
|
2 |
3 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
2 |
NA |
- |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
20 |
|
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
25 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
16 |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1.5 |
2 |
14.5 |
|
Average |
2.7 |
3.3 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
18.9 |
1 - Undeveloped, 1- Developing, 3 - Established, 4- Exemplary
In 2005, the Assessment Committee developed and used a rubric to evaluate the Third Year Assessment Reviews. The rubric allows the Committee to provide detailed and specific feedback to academic programs which is directly related to the priorities and concerns of the Higher Learning Commission. One faculty member commented that it, "articulates specific, defined standards by which any unit can measure its own progress in fully-exploiting assessment for the improvement of programs as well as of student learning," making it, "clear to each department involved where they can and need to go."
As the rubric is used and improved, it will also provide valuable longitudinal information to the Assessment Committee on campus strengths and weaknesses in assessment.
Thirteen departments presented Third Year Reviews this spring. Predictably, the strongest areas were goals and techniques. These areas have been emphasized by the Assessment Committee over its history. On the other hand, record-keeping and dissemination is a relatively new focus for the Assessment Committee. The average in all categories landed somewhere between developing and established.
The rubric was designed as a tool to help evaluate the various components of departmental assessment programs. It is not a scientific instrument. Therefore, little significance should be attached to the differences in scores between programs. However, over time, as the rubric is refined, it should provide a useful tool to help departments see their progress, (or lack thereof,) in specific areas.
| Goals | Techniques | Data | Analysis | Response | Constituencies | Record Keeping | Total | |
| Criminal Justice | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 27.5 |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 16.5 |
| Counseling | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 4 | 23.5 |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 20 | |
| English | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 17.5 |
| Fine Arts | 1.5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 10 |
| Music | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 9.5 |
| Physics | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | 14 |
| Political Science | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| Social Work | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | NA | 4 | 3 | 18 |
| Sociology | 2.5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 13.5 |
| Theatre | 3.5 | 3.5 | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3 | 19.5 |
| Undergrad Business | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Average | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 16.3 |
| IU South Bend Assessment Third Year Review Evaluation Rubric | |||||
| Scores | Educational Goals | Assessment Techniques | Data | Analysis | |
| 1 | Undeveloped | Absence of clearly defined educational goals | Assessment techniques still being identified; Assessment techniques not currently in use | No data reported | Little or no analysis of assessment data |
| 2 | Developing | Goals are not measurable | Assessment mostly dependent on a single assessment technique or tool; mostly narrative assessment techniques | Only partial data included | Some analysis done, but not shared or discussed with entire program faculty |
| 3 | Established | List of clear measurable educational goals for the program | Assessment techniques include a variety of direct and indirect measures of student learning | All data or representative data included | Assessment data carefully collected, analyzed and shared with all department faculty |
| 4 | Exemplary | List of measurable educational goals clearly tied to departmental, general education and campus strategic documents | Assessment techniques include a variety of direct and indirect measures of student learning with a rationale for choice of techniques relative to educational goals | All data or representative data included. Data submitted in an electronic format. Individuals cannot be identified | Assessment data is carefully collected, analyzed and discussed by all program faculty. Departmental Assessment Committee active. |
| IU South Bend Assessment Third Year Review Evaluation Rubric | ||||
| Score | Response | Constituencies | Record Keeping and Dissemination | |
| 1 | Undeveloped | No changes to the program reported; no rationale for maintaining current program given | Faculty unaware, uninvolved or unsupportive of educational goals and assessment of student learning. Students have no input into or awareness of educational goals. | No dissemination of assessment data and analysis beyond the department faculty. Reports to Assessment Committee lacking or very late. No established departmental assessment files. Assessment plan lacking or badly out of date. |
| 2 | Developing | Some program changes reported, but not clearly connected to evaluation of assessment data | Faculty knowledgeable about and have input into educational goals and support assessment of student learning. Student input collected and considered informally. | Assessment goals and analysis shared with all faculty, deans, and other parties on request. Assessment plan occasionally evaluated and updated. Annual assessment reports submitted. |
| 3 | Established | Program changes made in response to assessment analysis. | Faculty are knowledgeable about the latest theories and techniques for assessing student learning, and actively incorporate that knowledge into course planning and evaluation. Educational goals for courses included on all syllabi. Students have a clear idea of the purpose of assessment and have formal input into the process. | Assessment goals, analysis and actions taken are readily available in an easy to understand format. Assessment annual reports are timely and complete. Assessment plan regularly updated and changes reported to the Assessment Committee. |
| 4 | Exemplary | Program changes made, (or status quo confirmed,) clearly and directly supported by assessment analysis. Resources directed to identified weaknesses and successes publicly acknowledged and celebrated. | Students are not just objects of assessment, but know and contribute to program educational goals. Alumni, employers and community have input into and know the results of assessment activities through a website, focus groups and surveys. | Website showcasing educational goals, assessment data, analysis and program changes. Assessment Annual reports are timely and complete. Assessment plan updated annually, and submitted with the Third Year Review. |
1700 Mishawaka Ave. P.O. Box 7111 South Bend, IN 46634 Phone: (574) 520-IUSB (574) 520-4872
Assessment Committee - Phone:(574)520-5598Last updated: 02 October 2008 Copyright 2009, The Trustees of Indiana University Copyright Complaints |
