Academic Year

 Still working well 17 reports submitted, 1 missing  9 of 18 departments expressed concerns about assessment 4 departments reported lower results compared to previous years  2 of 18 departments making changes to assessment process Give students more notice of date of comprehensive exam; rate bibliographies at several stages of student work  7 of 18 departments making curricular changes Adding new courses, review sessions, etc.

 To refine and implement the process of and time table for the assessment plan.  To conduct an ongoing evaluation of the assessment plan, monitoring and documenting its effectiveness.  To report periodically to the faculty and to the administration on the assessment plan and its effectiveness.  To publish a calendar which clearly indicates the assessment schedule.  To review data for validity, reliability, and institutional implications.  To make data available to the faculty and administration.

 Step #1: Every Department with a presence in the L.A.E. will identify one or more goals each of their L.A.E. courses meet.  Step #2: The Assessment Committee will provide workshops to the faculty to assist them in creating plans to assess specific LAE courses  Step #3: Departments will submit a plan describing how each L.A.E. course it offers will be assessed and submit the plan to the Assessment Committee. Departmental plans may be supplemented by each faculty member teaching the course.  Step #4: After all plans are compiled and approved, a preset number of sections will be chosen for each goal and faculty teaching those sections will assess their courses according to the approved plans and report results.  Step #5: The Assessment Committee will be charged with compiling, managing, and reporting to the VPAA and faculty the effectiveness of the LAE in meeting its approved goals.

 The plan was approved by the Divisions and the full faculty (Fall 2007)  A form for reporting LAE course assessment plans was developed and altered with faculty input (Spring 2008)  Workshops were held to assist academic departments in writing LAE course assessment plans (Spring 2008)  Plans were written by departments and submitted to the Assessment Committee (Spring 2008)  Plans were reviewed (modified when necessary) and approved by the Assessment Committee (Spring/Summer 2008)  Courses were selected for assessment by the registrar’s office (Summer 2008)

 Members of the Assessment Committee ensured that their courses were included in the first rotation of LAE course assessment  A reporting form for LAE course assessment was developed (Fall 2008)  Courses were chosen for assessment in the Spring of 2009 by the registrar’s office (Fall 2008)  Workshops were held to assist faculty reporting results (Spring 2009)  LAE course assessment reports were reviewed (modified and/or sent back when necessary) and approved by the Assessment Committee (Spring/Summer 2009)

 Fall sections chosen for assessment 8 reports submitted  5 useable for stats, 3 were returned for clarification  Music decided early that assessment method chosen would not work (10 sections – not assessed) 4 not submitted  Spring sections chosen for assessment 14 reports submitted  11 useable for stats, 3 were returned for clarification  Music (4 sections – not assessed)  4 not submitted

Instructor perceptions of course fulfilling educational goal

Student perceptions of course fulfilling educational goal

 Baseline data Student perceptions of courses rated higher that instructor perceptions (why?)  Process appears to be working 9 instructors commented that they will need to change the assessment process  Refine rubrics, add additional assignments, etc. A few ‘bumps’ with logistics the first semester but better during second semester

 Goal #1: Receive and approve plans for all LAE courses (mostly met – 97% compliance rate)  Goal #2: Develop and LAE assessment report form (fully met)  Goal #3: Develop an LAE assessment evaluation tool for use in classrooms (fully met but data run report was confusing – hopefully remedied now)  Goal #4: Make needed changes to the course evaluation form (fully met)  Goal #5: Provide training workshops for faculty on assessing courses (fully met)  Goal #6: Receive and approve (or send back) all assessment reports for the 39 courses assessed during the academic year (partially met – as of July 20 th 2009, 7 plans were still in need of revision and 7 were not submitted)

 Goal #2 of the LAE is populated virtually entirely by courses from the Music department They question whether goal #2 is an appropriate goal of their courses Only 20% of students are exposed to a central goal of the LAE  The pledge that no faculty member will be called on provide an assessment report for an LAE course more than once every 3 years requires adjuncts and faculty here under one-year contracts be included in the pool of individuals chosen to provide an assessment report. By itself, this is good since they provide part of our LAE and they should be included However, an issue of compliance has begun to emerge and this situation needs to be monitored

 Consider the areas of concern  Approve reports and attempt to get compliance to 100%  Consider what action (if any) needs to be taken regarding assessment of: MAP courses Internships Study abroad experiences Interdisciplinary majors First Year Seminar Graduate offerings (possibly --- currently seeking guidance from the Graduate Committee)