From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics Derek J. Herrmann, Coordinator of University Assessment Services Kristen M. Hendrickson, Director of Planning, Research, and Policy Analysis Bruce R. Stoffel, Coordinator of Academic Program and Policy, Office of the Provost

Overview Introduction and Context Program Review Assessment Feedback Program Metrics Lessons Learned and Next Steps Questions and Discussion

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics

About Illinois State University Located in Normal, Illinois Doctoral/Research University Fall 2013 enrollment: 20,272 Programs offered – 71 bachelor’s degree programs – 43 master’s degree programs – 9 certificate programs – 10 doctoral degree programs

About Illinois State University Of the 275 programs of study (undergraduate and graduate)… – 139 participate in specialized accreditation – 136 do not participate in specialized accreditation Currently a member of Pioneer Pathways Cohort 2 and completing the Assessment Academy as part of reaccreditation Business intelligence project on campus

PROGRAM REVIEW From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics

Program Review Process Eight-year review cycle, programs per year Internal reviews by campus committee Facilitated by the Associate Provost Supplements specialized accreditation Follow-up actions may be requested

Program Review Schedule

Program Review Assessment Feedback Not PresentDevelopingEstablishedExemplary Program goals and student learning outcomes Systematic assessment of student learning Feedback from key stakeholders Use of the Results

Program Review Data

Impetuses for Change Rapid changes in disciplines and programs Unit requests for more data more frequently Specialized accreditation Data needed to evaluate follow-up actions External pressures – Performance-based funding – Gainful employment disclosures – Competitive recruiting environment

ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics

Assessment and Program Review Schedule

Process for the Review of Academic Assessment Plans Not PresentDevelopingEstablishedExemplary Program goals and student learning outcomes Systematic assessment of student learning Feedback from key stakeholders Use of the Results

Annual Assessment Update Years 4-8: Annual Update for Academic Assessment Plans – Respond to five items based on Higher Learning Commission’s Fundamental Questions for Conversations on Student Learning

Annual Assessment Update

Years 4-8: Annual Update for Academic Assessment Plans – Previously reviewed by University Assessment Services staff and any concerns were addressed – University Assessment Services staff and Assessment Advisory Council now review and respond to three items

Annual Update Feedback

PROGRAM METRICS From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics

Academic Program Profiles Development Process

Academic Program Profiles

LESSONS LEARNED AND NEXT STEPS From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics

Lessons Learned and Next Steps: Program Metrics Ask and you shall receive Expect the unexpected Communication is key Opportunity to educate audiences about the data – seize it!

Lessons Learned and Next Steps: Program Metrics Involve faculty from the start Expect difficulty meeting all program needs Anticipate concern about use of data Moving forward … Revise current metrics and add others Integrate with new business intelligence tool Provide units 24/7 access to data Revisit 8-year program review cycle

Lessons and Next Steps: Assessment Feedback Be more proactive/outreach more to programs Use the expertise of others Continue to implement feedback process Developing mechanism for incorporating with Program Review

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION From Cyclical to Continuous Improvement: Assessment Feedback and Program Metrics

Questions and Discussion Is there a similar process at your institution? Have you (and/or your colleagues) considered implementing a similar process at your institution? If you have done this at your institution, what are your ‘lessons learned?’

THANK YOU! Derek J. Herrmann Kristen M. Hendrickson Bruce R. Stoffel