1. Using IDEA for Assessment, Program Review, and Accreditation Texas A & M University November 8, 2012 Shelley A. Chapman, PhD

2. Plan for this Session Program Evaluation & Assessment of Student Learning Group Summary Reports Aggregate Data File Benchmarking Reports Accreditation Guides

3. What makes IDEA unique? 1.Focus on Student Learning 2.Focus on Instructor’s Purpose 3.Adjustments for Extraneous Influences 4.Validity and Reliability 5.Comparison Data 6.Flexibility

4. Underlying Philosophy of IDEA Teaching effectiveness is determined primarily by students’ progress on the types of learning the instructor targets.

5. Faculty Information Form

6. Diagnostic Report Overview  Page 1 – Big Picture  How did I do? Page 3 – Diagnostic  What can I do differently? Page 2 – Learning Details  What did students learn? Page 4 – Statistical Detail  Any additional insights?

7. Your Average (5-point Scale) RawAdj. A.Progress on Relevant Objectives 1 Four objectives were selected as relevant (Important or Essential—see page 2) 4.14.3 1 If you are comparing Progress on Relevant Objectives from one instructor to another, use the converted average. The Big Picture

8. Progress On Relevant Objectives 4 4.3 + 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.6 5

9. Summary Evaluation: Five-Point Scale Report Page 1 Your Average Score (5-point scale) RawAdj. A.Progress on Relevant Objectives Four objectives were selected as relevant (Important or Essential—see page 2) 4.14.3 Overall Ratings B. Excellent Teacher4.74.9 C. Excellent Course4.14.4 D. Average of B & C4.44.7 Summary Evaluation (Average of A & D)4.34.5 50% 25%

10. Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning

11. Individual Reports to Group Reports

12. The Group Summary Report How did we do? How might we improve?

13. Defining Group Summary Reports (GSRs) Institutional Departmental Service/Introductory Courses Major Field Courses General Education Program

14. GSRs Help Address Questions Longitudinal Contextual Curricular Pedagogical Student Learning- focused

15. Adding Questions Up to 20 Questions can be added Institutional Departmental Course-based All of the above

16. Local Code Use this section of the FIF to code types of data.

17. Defining Group Summary Reports Local Code 8 possible fields Example: Column one – Delivery Format 1=Self-paced 2=Lecture 3=Studio 4=Lab 5=Seminar 6=Online Example from Benedictine University

18. Example Using Local code Assign Local Code 1=Day, Tenured 2=Evening, Tenured 3=Day, Tenure Track 4=Evening, Tenure Track 5=Day, Adjunct 6=Evening, Adjunct Request Reports All Day Classes Local Code=1, 3, & 5 All Evening Classes Local Code=2, 4, & 6 Courses Taught by Adjuncts Local Code=5 & 6

19. Description of Courses Included in this Report Number of Classes Included Diagnostic From 42 Short Form 27 Total 69 Number of Excluded Classes 0 Response Rate Classes below 65% Response Rate 2 Average Response Rate 85% Class Size Average Class Size 20 Page 1 of GSR

20. Assessment of Learning What are our faculty emphasizing? How do students rate their learning? How do our courses compare with others? How do our students compare with others (self- rated characteristics)? What efforts can we make for improvement? (How can we “close the loop”?)

21. Texas A & M University Student Learning OutcomesPossible IDEA Learning Objectives Master the depth of knowledge required for a degree 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 Demonstrate critical thinking11 Communicate effectively8 Work collaboratively5 Practice personal and social responsibility 10, Extra Question Demonstrate social, cultural, and global competence 7, Extra Question Prepare to engage in lifelong learning 9, 12

22. Are we targeting TAMU SLOs in Core Curriculum? TAMU Core Curriculum Courses 123456789101112 ENGL 203XXXX MATH 241XXX BIOL 101XXXX RELS 211XXXX ARTS 103XXX ANTH 201XXX IDEA Learning Objectives

23. Are we targeting TAMU SLOs in Core Curriculum? TAMU Core Curriculum Courses 123456789101112 ENGL 203XXXX MATH 241XXX BIOL 101XXXX RELS 211XXXX ARTS 103XXX ANTH 201XXX IDEA Learning Objectives

24. What are We Emphasizing? Percent of Classes Selecting Obj. as Important or Essential This GroupInstitutionIDEA System Objective 116%70%78% Objective 213%59%75% Objective 341%58%75% Objective 432%35%55% Objective 523%19%32% Objective 632%14%25% Objective 722%27% Objective 878%43%47% Objective 919%23%41% Objective 107%11%23% Objective 1128%42%49% Objective 1220%23%41% Average # of Obj. Selected3.74.25.7 Page 2

25. What are We Emphasizing? Page 9 Section B Number Rating Percent indicating amount required None or Little SomeMuch Writing662%17%82% Oral Communication666%42%52% Computer Application6650%44%6% Group Work6627%59%14% Mathematics/Quantitative Work 6597%3%0% Critical Thinking6630% 40% Creative/Artistic/Design6661%33%6%

26. Do Students’ report of learning meet our expectations? Pages 5 and 6 Raw Average Adj. Average # of Classes This Report 3.9 11 Institution 4.2 3,963 IDEA System 4.0 31,991 Objective 1: Gaining factual knowledge (terminology, classifications, methods, trends )

27. How do students rate their learning? Page 3 Part 1: Distribution of Converted Scores Compared to the IDEA Database

28. Overall Progress Ratings (Courses) Page 3 Percent of Classes at or Above the IDEA database Average

29. Overall Progress Ratings (Courses) Part 3: Percent of Classes at or Above This Institution’s Average Page 4

30. Which teaching methods might we use to improve learning? Page 7 Teaching Methods and Styles Stimulating Student Interest# ClassesAv.s.d. 15. Inspired students to set and achieve goals which really challenged them 423.80.5

31. Relationship of Learning Objectives to Teaching Methods

32. How do students view course work demands? Page 8B Student Ratings of Course Characteristics Diagnostic Form Item # & ItemAverage% Classes Below 3.0 % Classes 4.0 or Above 33. Amount of Reading This Report3.421%24% Institution3.331%19% IDEA System3.233%15% 34. Amount of work in other (non-reading) assignments This Report3.324%10% Institution3.423%20% IDEA System3.421%18% 35. Difficulty of subject matter This Report3.219%0% Institution3.513%19% IDEA System3.420%18%

33. Aggregate Data File Allows you to Use Excel Spreadsheet Use with SAS or SPSS Ask other types of questions Display data in different ways

39. Instructors’ Reports on Course Emphases: Selected Pairings-Writing and Oral Communication

40. Instructors’ Reports on Course Emphases: Selected Pairings-Critical Thinking & Writing

41. Benchmarking Institutional and Discipline Reports

42. Benchmarking Reports Comparison to 6-10 Peers Same Carnegie Classification IDEA database

43. Benchmarking Reports The student, rather than the class, is the unit of analysis Percentage of positive ratings is given rather than averages

44. Report Summary

46. Comparison Groups Your University ---------- ---------- Peer* ---------------------------- Carnegie ---------- ---------- National ---------- ---------- * Peer group is based on 6-10 institutions identified by your institution

47. Students’ Perceptions: Gen Ed

48. Background for Specialization

49. Instructional Objectives Selected by Instructors Instructors’ Intentions/ focus Students’ Self-Reported Progress on Learning

50. IDEA Objective 3 Learning to apply course material (to improve thinking, problem solving, and decisions)

51. IDEA Objective 8 Developing skill in expressing oneself orally or in writing

52. Teaching Methods and Styles Reported by Students Fostering Student Collaboration Encouraging Student Involvement

53. Using Aggregate Data for Assessment TAMU Student Learning Outcomes Sub-Group Summary Reports Institutional Group Summary Report, Include Extra Questions Benchmarking: One Year or 3-5 Year Trend Report Benchmarking: Discipline Report Core Curriculum Courses in the Major Graduate Level Course Learning Outcomes Course Learning Outcomes Course Learning Outcomes Course Learning Outcomes

54. Accreditation Guides SACS

55. NCATE Guide

56. CACREP Guide

57. Questions?