1. Director of Assessment Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Leading the Revision of Campus-Level Student Learning Outcomes: Obstacles and Accomplishments
Tony Ribera, PhD
Director of Assessment
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

2. Overview Institutional Context Areas in Need of Attention
Committee Goal and Actions
Obstacles and Accomplishments
Questions and Insights

3. What is the status of your campus-level student learning outcomes efforts?
Recently revised them
Recently created them
Currently revising them
Currently creating them

4. About Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
The mission of Rose-Hulman is to provide our students with the world's best undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics education in an environment of individual attention and support.
Appx undergraduate students and 100 graduate students
Student to Faculty ratio: 11:1
Average class size: 20
Over 90 student clubs and organizations

5. Commission on the Assessment of Student Outcomes (CASO)
Founded in 1996
Responsible for campus-level student learning outcomes and campus- level assessment plan
Campus-level student learning outcomes first approved in 1998
Last major revision in 2007
Responsible for KEEN outcomes and KEEN assessment plan
CASO spent the past two academic years working on criteria and testing rubrics using student artifacts from KEEN courses.

6. Institutional Student Learning Outcomes & Performance Criteria6
Domain
Student Learning Outcome
Performance Criteria
Technical Skills
Outcomes developed by each department
Mapped to specific ABET criteria (engineering programs)
Professional Skills
Leadership
Levels A – C indicate the level of performance achieved by each student
Teamwork
Communication
World Citizenship
Cultural & Global Awareness
Ethics
Service 6

7. Sample Outcome/Criterion

9. RosEvaluation Annual (Summer) Faculty raters Inter-rater reliability
Rubrics/Rating Scales
AAC&U Written Communication VALUE Rubric
Teamwork Rubric
Pass/Fail
Institutional Outcomes
KEEN Outcomes

10. Assessment Institute Indianapolis, IN

12. Transparency Framework
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. (2011). Transparency Framework. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). Retrieved from: 

13. Assessment at Rose-Hulman
Campus
Program
Course

14. Assessment at Rose-Hulman
Evidence from student work is foundation
Assess campus-level outcomes in RosEvaluation
Teamwork
Communication
Cultural and Global Awareness
Ethics
Areas in need of attention
Leadership & Service?
Teamwork & Communication criteria?
Co-curriculum
Campus
Program
Course

15. Assessment at Rose-Hulman
Other areas in need of attention
Emphasis on ABET accreditation
Academic program and functional area reporting
Monitoring of use and campus-level use by CASO, QOE, and IRPA
Assessment resources available to faculty/staff
Highlight faculty/staff assessment activities and use of evidence
Campus
Program
Course

16. Assessment at Rose-Hulman
Other areas in need of attention
Expanding raters (Staff, supervisors)
Expanding activities (internships, study abroad)
Providing feedback and opportunities for intervention
Campus
Program
Course

17. Think-Pair-Share
Thinking about campus-level learning outcomes and assessment at your institution, what are some strengths and areas in need of attention?

18. Goal
By the end of the academic year, CASO will submit a draft of new campus-level student learning outcomes.

19. Understanding the current landscape/best practices
Articulating specific and measurable learning outcomes
Identifying characteristics of the learning environment and student artifacts
Incorporating Internal and External Feedback
Incorporating Internal and External Feedback

20. Meeting 1 Discuss CASO responsibilities and 2017-2018 charge
Fall Quarter
Week
Meetings/Activities
FALL 1
Meeting 1 Discuss CASO responsibilities and charge 2 3
Meeting 2 Discuss feedback from scholars; Review other campus-level learning outcomes 4 5
Meeting 3 Review our campus-level learning outcomes, VALUE Rubrics, and ABET criteria 6 7
Meeting 4 Discuss feedback from internal stakeholders (e.g., VPAA, CCPEO) 8 9
Meeting 5 Finalize plan for collecting feedback and articulating learning outcomes 10
EXAMS
OFF

21. Team Assignments 4 teams
Focus of Winter Quarter: Articulating specific and measureable learning outcomes
Emphasis on higher-order thinking/deep learning
Distinguishing various levels (A, B, …)
Focus of Spring Quarter: Revising outcomes; Identifying learning opportunities in courses and co-curriculum; Identifying course and co- curricular artifacts

22. Team Assignments TEAM 1 TEAM 2 TEAM 3 TEAM 4 Winter
Meetings 1 & 2
Creative & Critical Thinkers
Investigators
Intercultural & Global Learners
Ethical Professionals
Meetings 3 & 4
Problem Solvers
Lifelong Learners
Communicators
Team Members & Leaders
Spring

23. Feedback Meeting with VPAA Meeting with Department Heads
Findings from Campus Community Report
Findings from Employer Report
Findings from Departmental Employer Surveys
Communication with Internal and External Experts

24. Obstacles Existing outcomes/process Projects with conflicting goals
Engaging students
Perceptions of outcomes and assessment
“A bureaucratic behemoth”
“Invaded the classroom”
“Bureaucratic beast”

25. Accomplishments Member buy-in Using existing data
Collecting and considering feedback
Flexible/Staying on task

26. Questions and Insights?
Tony Ribera, PhD Director of Assessment Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology