1. Enhancing OSP for Programmatic and Institutional Assessment Lynn Ward and John Gosney Indiana University

2. IUPUI: Institutional Profile Founded 1969 with a strong local mission Blended campus Metropolitan research university 20+ schools (15 with professional/pre- professional foci) Commuter campus, ~30,000 students (~20,000 undergraduates)

3. Approach to General Education Early 1990s - General Education based in the schools—distributive model Accreditation prompts internal reflection Campus mandate for change, specifically a centrally coordinated approach and specific learning outcomes for general education 1998 – Campus adopts a competency or ability-based model 3

4. Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs) Core Skills –written and oral communication –ability to comprehend, interpret, and analyze texts –analytical (quantitative reasoning) –Information and technological literacy Critical Thinking Integration and Application of Knowledge Intellectual Depth, Breadth, and Adaptiveness Understanding Society and Culture Values and Ethics

5. Assessment Needs Document and demonstrate the effectiveness of IUPUI’s approach to general education (HLCNCA and ICHE) Document student achievement in programs subject to specialized accreditation (Education, Engineering, Visual Communications, etc.) Standard reports that aggregate and summarize assessment data across courses and programs Filter and group on demographic and academic criteria 5

6. Original Vision 6

7. Challenges Site-centric nature of OSP tools; no way to easily aggregate data across sites No tools to simplify management of very large sites Customization also makes it difficult to aggregate data; each department uses a different evaluation form and rating scale. No canned reports; every report requires an experienced XML programmer understands underlying data structures Academic programs more concerned with their own disciplinary outcomes than PULs 7

8. Current Vision: Phase 1: Goal/Outcome Linking Instructor or program administrator creates and publishes goal set; goal set becomes aggregation point Instructors in program can link any course assignment, matrix cell, or wizard page to one or multiple goals Students can attach examples of their work directly to one or multiple goals. Standardization of evaluation form elements makes it possible to aggregate and report data across courses and programs

9. Goal/Outcome Linking EDUC 301 EDUC 401 Practicum Portfolio Principles of Teacher Education

10. Filtering and Grouping Secondary Education

11. Phase 2: Goal/Outcome Mapping Program Outcomes Institutional Outcomes

12. Campus-level Aggregation via Mapping IUPUI

13. Publishing and Linking Items to Matrices 13

14. Create and Publish Matrix 14

15. Manage Site Associations 15

16. Associate Site(s) with Matrix 16

17. Create Assignment in “Associated” Site 17

18. Link Assignment to Matrix Cell(s) 18

19. Student View of Linked Assignment 19

20. Linked Assignment in Matrix Cell 20

21. Opened Assignment in Cell 21

22. Linkable Tools Assignments Matrices (cells can be linked to other cells) Wizards (pages can be linked to cells) 22

23. Other OSP Enhancements

24. The Problem Matrix authors must select forms and evaluators in each cell, even when the same choices are used in every cell. 24

25. The Solution: Matrix Defaults 25

26. Use All Defaults 26

27. Override All Defaults 27

28. The Problem No workflow support for reviewers (providers of formative feedback) Students cannot solicit feedback from peers, advisors, etc. No way for individuals who are not CIG members to provide feedback 28

29. Reviewer Workflow Submit for Review button Email Notification Eventually … –Recipient notification –Visual indicator of new feedback 29

30. Student Initiated Feedback 30

31. External Reviewers Email notification provides direct link to cell (Sakai UserID and Password is required) Eventually … –Reviewer dashboard in My Workspace to aggregate pending feedback requests 31

32. The Problem Submitted artifacts are forever frozen in My Workspace >Resources, which precludes users from reorganizing files and folders at a later time. Also, students do not understand why some files in their personal resources cannot be moved or deleted. 32

33. Solution: Attachment Helper 33 Direct upload from local storage device.

34. The Problem Users in evaluator (or reviewer) role can open all cells in a users matrix, even if not selected as an evaluator for the cell. More granular access control is needed to support range of implementation scenarios from highly sensitive and secure to open and collaborative. 34

35. The Solution Cells can only opened by the designated evals/reviewers Revision of matrix permissions to provide much greater flexibility and granularity in progress 35

36. The Problem Cells that have been evaluated and returned for additional evidence or other modifications look just like cells that have never been submitted. 36

37. The Solution: Returned Status 37

38. What’s Next? 38

39. For Fall 2008 Standardized evaluation form and reports Enhanced evaluator workflow and dashboard Reviewer dashboard Auto-population of portfolio sites based on membership of associated course sites Linking to wizard pages, and overall wizard improvement 39

40. Questions? Lynn Ward, leward@iupui.eduleward@iupui.edu John Gosney, jgosney@iupui.edujgosney@iupui.edu 40