FOR THE HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION’S ACADEMY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING YSU’s Sustainability Plan 1

Agenda Context Accomplishments in the Academy Moving out of the Academy Sustainability Plans  YOUR Plan  Office of Assessment Plan  General Education Plan 2

Higher Learning Commission Context  The Higher Learning Commission’s Academy for the Assessment of Student Learning  Four year program, in lieu of focus visit  Impact Report submitted August 2012  Exit Interview in October 2012  Results Forum in November 2012  Sustainability Plan developed October, finalized in November  Team Members: 3 Cynthia Anderson Kevin Ball Cheryl Bosley Bege Bowers William Buckler Chet Cooper Michael Crist Jack Fahey Hillary Fuhrman Shearle Furnish Joe Palardy Tod Porter Sharon Stringer, (Team Leader)

HLC Academy Project Goals 1. Institute assessment of general education; institute changes to address long standing issues (e.g., non- compliance); undertake revisions of the general education program based on evidence. 1. Engage all campus constituencies in analyzing teaching and learning at YSU; actively encourage faculty, staff, and students to provide recommendations for improving education at YSU. 4

General Education Accomplishments 5

Moved intensives out of Gen Ed to the major Revised Gen Ed model Raised Gen Ed assessment from course to program level  ROAD  Domain assessment Assessed student learning in Gen Ed and identified action steps 6

Assessment Engagement Accomplishments 7

Increased faculty and staff participation Increased student participation Greater organizational integration with assessment Continued/expanded faculty development opportunities Established a positive culture and reward structures Engaged in campus dialogue on student learning and continuous improvement Participated in Evidence Inventory Increased open communication across campus 8

After the Academy “Without question, Youngstown State University has made substantial progress [in its projects]. It also has a lot left to do…” -HLC Mentor feedback on Impact report October

Future Focal Areas Three specific areas cited by HLC mentor:  “Closing the loop” in more programs  Implementing assessment across all Gen Ed domains  Building stronger connections between major and Gen Ed assessment Other critical areas:  Ensuring continued assessment momentum—we are not done!  New HLC Criteria for Accreditation  Codifies assessment expectations  Substantial faculty involvement 10

YOUR Sustainability Plan Not grand new ideas Articulation of what you will continue to do Small additional steps Not just Assessment or General Education Campus-wide, collective responsibility Handout: what is YOUR sustainability plan? Answer at: 11

Office of Assessment (OOA) Sustainability Plan 12

Assessment and Sustainability Quality of Assessment Processes  Strengths  Quality/participation increasing over time: excellent! -- LO review (100%), curriculum maps (95%)  Increased participation/activity/dialogues on student learning  Challenges Ahead  Stepping back for the big picture—what is the impact on learning? (aka “closing the loop”)  Focus on process vitality, not the form (streamlining)  Continuous collection of data (no years off!)  Ensuring student learning archives are kept for 10 years  Differentiating learning in each program and degree level (AA vs. BA vs. BS)  Recruiting assessment volunteers 13

Sustainability for the OOA is: Attending to/sharing new HLC Criteria impacting assessment practice Streamlining assessment reporting to put focus on process, not form Fostering program assessment through feedback, consultation, and education Continuing to provide data and opportunity to dialogue about and improve student learning Continuing and expanding open communication with the campus community Continuing and expanding support for assessment innovation and recognition of good work Strengthening connections between assessment and faculty/staff development 14

HILLARY FUHRMAN, X2453 JOE PALARDY X3034 Thank you 15

HLC New Criteria for Accreditation New Criteria at: Guiding Values, includes: 1. Focus on student learning 4. Culture of continuous improvement 5. Evidence-based institutional learning and self-presentation 9. Mission-centered evaluation The Five Criteria 1. Mission 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct 3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support 4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement 5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness 16

New HLC Criteria Relevant to Practice 4.B. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning. 1. The institution has clearly stated goals for student learning and effective processes for assessment of student learning and achievement of learning goals. 2. The institution assesses achievement of the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs. 3. The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning. 4. The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student learning reflect good practice, including the substantial participation of faculty and other instructional staff members. 17

New HLC Criteria Relevant to Practice, cont. 3A2: The institution articulates and differentiates learning goals for its undergraduate, graduate, post- baccalaureate, post-graduate, and certificate programs. 3A3: The institution’s program quality and learning goals are consistent across all modes of delivery and all locations (on the main campus, at additional locations, by distance delivery, as dual credit, through contractual or consortial arrangements, or any other modality). 5C2: The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting 18