---

Vol. 3 No. 2

The Missouri State University-West Plains Assessment Committee

April 2006

---

Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Self-Study Report

A committee chaired by Jim McLeane is well underway with the work of writing the Self-Study Report for the upcoming Focus Visit on Assessment that will take place in November 2006. The Self-Study report will be organized by the following outline:

1. Introduction-giving a short history of assessment at the University.
2. Respond to the HLC concerns raised in the 2003 Accreditation visit.
3. How are your stated student-learning outcomes appropriate to your mission, programs, and degrees?
4. What evidence do you have that students achieve your stated learning outcomes?
5. In what ways do you analyze and use evidence of student learning?
6. How do you ensure shared responsibility for assessment of student learning?
7. How do you evaluate and improve the effectiveness of your efforts to assess and improve student learning?

The Research of Teaching: To Improve Student Learning

The primary purpose of academic assessment is to improve student learning. Assessment is the process that evaluates the learning experience in our courses with the purpose of continual improvement and has the objective of assuring the accomplishment of the mission of Missouri State University-West Plains.

As I examine the Course-Embedded Assessment Reports submitted by faculty members, I get the impression that many of my colleagues think that the objective of assessment is to demonstrate that their students are learning the established objectives of their course. I see cases where the learning standard is met (e.g., "60% of students will achieve at least a score of 4 on the assessment rubric") and cases where the assessment plan standard is not met. As professors, we are interested in whether or not we are meeting our learning objectives; however, what is more important is the question of what we are learning about our students and what we are doing to improve learning.

The Course-Embedded Assessment process is intended as research into the learning experience that exists in our courses. It is not an evaluation of the professor. There are other instruments which better accomplish that objective. What the Course-Embedded Assessment process provides is an opportunity to explore student learning outcornes with the intent to make ongoing modification and continual improvement in the teaching/learning experience we share with our students. The point of assessment is: what did you, as the professor, learn and what did you do to modify the process? The follow-up question comes when you assess the learning objective again to determine whether learning has improved.

In my own course, for example, while reviewing student written work on papers and exam questions, it was clear that the students were performing poorly (on the writing rubric) in the area of higher order thinking (or what I would call critical thinking). After giving this some thought, and examining my teaching activity, I concluded that, although I model critical thinking. I was not teaching critical thinking. Clearly, if I wanted students to practice critical thinking. I should be teaching critical thinking. I decided that I would dedicate one class period to a discussion of what critical thinking is and what I expected of the students in my course. The next time that I teach the course, I will teach higher order thinking.

This is the purpose of assessment. If our students do not demonstrate the learning that we expect, we should not take it as a reflection on ourselves as professors or as a sign of lazy or under-prepared students; we should explore the teaching/learning process for ways to make it work better.

– Jay Dee Martin

Recent Progress in Developing the Culture of Assessment

April, 2005 —

Faculty group participated in an assessment workshop presented by the AAHE/HLC.

April, 2005 —

Information on the Capstone Courses put into the 2005/2006 Course Catalog.

April, 2005 —

Assessment Committee makes plans for an Assessment Notebook for all faculty.

May, 2005 —

Faculty group participate in an assessment workshop presented by the PEEL Group.

June, 2005 —

Assessment Committee meets over the summer to continue assessment planning.

August, 2005 —

Faculty Workshop presents Communicating to Learn and Information Literacy competencies

August, 2005 —

Assessment Handbook distributed at the Faculty Workshop.

August, 2005 —

Student Portfolio requirement for graduation included in 2005/2006 Course Catalog.

September, 2005 —

Faculty Senate approves Assessment Committee Mission, Goals and Objectives.

October, 2005 —

FAC presents first Draft of Full Assessment Plan to the Assessment Committee.

October, 2005 —

FAC distributes guidelines and reporting instruments for discipline and program assessment plans.

October, 2005 —

FAC asks faculty to demonstrate linkages between course, discipline and general education objectives through the General Education Course Audit and Gen. Ed. Matrix.

October, 2005 —

Dean Law, in consultation with Faculty Senate, appoints members of the Self-Study Steering Committee for the Assessment Focused Visit

October, 2005 —

Evelyn Vetter developed and distributed an Assessment Glossary

November, 2005 —

FA C reported that 80 % of full- time faculty are participating in course assessment and seven per-course faculty are participating.

November, 2005 —

Jay Dee Martin (FAG) attends MidAIR meetings and meets with MAC on assessment.

November, 2005 —

Assessment Sub-committee formed to develop Student Portfolio requirements.

November, 2005 —

Jerry Trick and Judy Carr present Student Portfolio requirements to the Faculty Senate.

November, 2005 —

Assessment Committee reviews second draft of full Assessment Plan the plan elaborates the components: Course-Embedded Assessment, Student Portfolios, Capstone Course and Standardized Tests.

November, 2005 —

Dean Law approves the use of LibQUAL to assess Garnett Library.

November, 2005 —

AAS Programs develop Student Portfolios to assess General Education and Programs.

December, 2005 —

VoL 3.1 of Valuing Learning Newsletter published.

January, 2006 —

Spring 2006 Capstone Courses announced.

January, 2006 —

Spring Faculty Workshop focuses on Assessment Vocabulary and Capstone Courses.

January, 2006 —

FAC asks faculty to build Course Assessment Plans which include one new General Ed. learning outcome, one discipline learning outcome and two additional course objectives.

January, 2006 —

Jerry Trick designs a General Education Learning Outcomes poster for classrooms & offices

January, 2006 —

Assessment Self-Study Committee begins meetings to draft the Self-Study Report.

January, 2006 —

Assessment Self-Study sends outline of the Self-Study to the HLC.

February, 2006 —

Jay Dee Martin attends SGA Roundtable to discuss assessment program with students.

February, 2006 —

Assessment Self-Study Committee receives reply from Dr. Karen Solomon of the HLC.

March, 2006 —

FAC discusses and requests course release time for the Division Chairs to give time for the full development of the Assessment Program at the discipline and program levels.

March, 2006 —

Dean Law approves the granting of course release time for Division Chairs and suggests that we should consider paying a summer stipend for them to work on assessment in the summer.

April, 2006 —

Dean Law, FAC, and Assessment Chairs meet to discuss the Virtual Resource Room for the Self-Study.

April, 2006 —

Work continues on the Self-Study Report

April, 2006 —

Jay Dee Martin and a group of faculty attend the Showcase on Assessment at CMSU sponsored by the Missouri Assessment Consortium. Martin attends MAC meeting afterwards.

April, 2006 —

FAC organizes assessment data for the Self-Study and Virtual Resource Room.

May, 2006 —

Work continues on the Self-Study Report.

June, 2006 —

FAC works with Division Chairs on development of Discipline and Program assessment.

– Jay Dee Martin