1. Department of Africana Studies (Degree Program: B.A./B.S Afro-American Studies)

In its March 1, 1995 assessment plan, the Department of Africana Studies identified eight intended student outcomes. These outcomes are predominantly cognitive. However, the affective (attitudinal and motivational) and behavioral student outcomes are not as clearly specified. In terms of measuring the success of its program, the Department has committed itself primarily to the use of portfolios, although provisions are made for a survey of graduates of the program as well as the collection of letters pertaining to students' job-related functions and performance in graduate school. These measurement instruments have yet to be formally employed to gather student outcomes assessment data. Data derived from informal discussion with students have, however, generated major curriculum revisions for both the major and minor in the Fall of 1997. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the program itself.

2. Department of Art (Degree Programs: Bachelor of Fine Arts; B.A. in Art History; B.A./B.S. Art; B.S. in Studio Art; and, B.S. in Arts Education; M.F.A.; M.A./M.S. Art)

In its 1997 report, the Department identified cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral student outcomes for all of its degree-granting programs. In its March 26, 1998 report, the Department extended its analysis, noting that beyond these students outcomes, the faculty has also determined that "to fully implement our assessment plan, it is also necessary to be able to deal directly with the objects and images produced by the students." In terms of measuring the success of its programs, the Department has: (a) Generated cognitive measures of students' success in the programs at the first-year and key subsequent years in the programs as well as employed art education tests and evaluations of student teaching; (b) Created portfolios through, among other means, photographic and multi-image archives maintained in a digitalized computerized system; and (c) Provided periodic faculty reviews at key intervals in students' programs. Several of these measurement instruments, such as the cognitive measures and art education tests, have been used since Fall 1997. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

3. Department of Chemistry (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Chemistry; M.S. Chemistry)

In its March 1995 assessment plan, the Department identified a series of cognitive (e.g., basic knowledge and problem-solving abilities) and behavioral skills (e.g., laboratory, computer, communication, and information). Student progress through the programs in the Department are to be measured by a standardized test, an alumni questionnaire and capstone course. Additionally, value-added assessment components are currently being developed by the faculty as well as a questionnaire to be administered to students subsequently entering graduate schools. A version of the alumni questionnaire was distributed in mid-March 1998, and the first capstone course should be offered in the Spring of 1999. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

4. Department of Communication (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Communication which includes the Public Relations Concentration; B.A./B.S. Journalism; B.A./B.S. Radio-TV-Film; M.A./M.S. Communication)

In its February 27, 1995 report, the Department identified intended student outcomes for each of its four degree-granting programs (i.e., Communication Studies, Journalism, Radio-Television-Film, and its M.A./M.S. graduate program). Communication Studies developed and has administered for several years its own version of a pre- and post-test cognitive instrument to students entering and leaving the program, employed for three years a standardized attitudinal "willingness to communicate" measure, and used a capstone course to identify behavioral skills when seniors leave the program. Moreover, Communication Studies has been collecting data relevant to the intended student outcomes of its program for several years. However, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

While the specifics are unclear, Journalism is apparently developing a cognitive instrument to be first administered in the Fall of 1998, and it also plans to assess specific journalistic techniques. The Journalism portfolio outlined in February 1995 has been abandoned, and the faculty is currently "wrestling with how to best achieve" student performance. At present, it is unclear how Journalism plans to collect data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the program itself.

Radio-Television-Film is likewise in the process of generating a cognitive instrument for measuring student accomplishment in its program. Additionally, Radio-Television-Film plans to have students develop a faculty-evaluated portfolio. At present, there is no indication that Radio-Television-Film has begun to collect data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the program itself.

The Department's graduate program is currently being reviewed. Graduate students have been and are interviewed in both of the program's two introductory graduate courses, and graduates of the program have been interviewed in post-graduation telephone interviews. Since the summer of 1997, data related to the Department's graduate program has been collected, and student recommendations are affecting the structure and organization of "two basic courses required of all graduate students" in the program.

5. Department of Criminology (Degree Programs: A.S. Criminology; B.A./B.S. Criminology; M.A./M.S. Criminology)

The Department has developed seven intended student outcomes, predominantly cognitive objectives. The precise attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of the programs remain unstated and therefore unclear. The means or methods used to measure students' progress include external agencies' evaluation of student performance in internships, grade point average, job performance surveys of graduates of the programs, alumni surveys, and a capstone course being offered for the first time during Spring 1998. Additionally, the Department is in the process of developing a cognitive entrance-exit examination as well as exit interviews with students completing the programs. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

6. Department of Economics (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Economics; M.A./M.S. Economics)

In its original 1995 assessment plan, the Department identified five intended student outcomes focusing primarily upon cognitive and behavioral objectives related to its academic programs. Scheduled to begin in the Fall of 1996, these outcomes are to be measured in terms of student portfolios, a senior analytical comprehensive exit examination, and a capstone senior seminar. In its March 1998 report, the Department anticipated that the portfolios would be evaluated in its senior seminar in the Spring of 1999. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

7. Department of English (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. English; M.A./M.S. English)

In its Spring 1996 report, the Department identified five intended student outcomes focusing predominantly upon cognitive and behavioral activities related to its programs. These outcomes were to be determined by faculty evaluations of student portfolios, the use of a standardized cognitive test, and an alumni survey. During the 1997-1998 academic year, with the advice and recommendations of a visiting assessment expert, the Department began to encourage students to collect relevant materials in a portfolio, train faculty to evaluate student portfolios, and conduct preliminary evaluations of student portfolios. Additional faculty training is planned until Spring 1999. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

8. Department of Family and Consumer Sciences (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Family and Consumer Sciences; B.A./B.S. Food and Nutrition; B.A./B.S. Interior Design; B.A./B.S. Child Development and Family Life; B.A./B.S. Clothing and Textiles; M.S. Family and Consumer Sciences)

Particular intended student outcomes for the undergraduate programs are comprehensive, including specific attention to an extensive range of cognitive, behavioral, and affective/motivational dimensions, that are specified under various categories such as "Physical and Biological Sciences," "Behavioral and Social Sciences," "Professional Sciences," "Communication Sciences," "Interpersonal Skills," "Judgment and Maturity Skills," and "Administrative/Management Skills." While variations among the programs exist, essentially the same assessment methods will be used to measure student achievement which includes the use of portfolios, alumni surveys, and employer surveys. The Department reports that, "Development of this plan was done during the 1997-98 school year. No implementation has yet begun." Accordingly, it should be noted that at present, there is no indication that the Department has begun to collect assessment data. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

Particular intended student outcomes for the graduate program are precisely noted with a strong emphasis on cognitive development and behavioral skills. The methods used to assess the program rely predominantly upon the evaluation of individual student performance as measured by: The quality of a thesis, project, or article produced; a written mid-program examination and oral defense; and how effectively students satisfy their area-specific accreditation guidelines. Several students are currently completing several of these program requirements. It remains unclear, however, how the quality of these students' efforts can be used to provide feedback to evaluate the program itself. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

9. Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures (Degree Programs: B.A. in German; B.A. in French; B.A. in Latin; B.A. in Spanish; M.A./M.S. Foreign Languages)

Reflecting a wide diversity of cognitive, behavioral, and affective/motivational dimensions, the Department has identified ten "skill/knowledge" areas or "assessment standards" for evaluating student achievement in the Foreign Language Major. Student achievement is measured with a portfolio that is formally judged by students' advisers when they completed an "Evaluation Sheet" for each student. The student-specific nature of these assessment devices has the potential of bypassing an assessment of the program itself. Indeed, the Department itself has noted that, "Since each Program has developed its own Standards, there is no mandatory uniformity across the Department and each Program is able to take the specific needs of that Program into account. The Evaluation Sheet, however, does provide a tool that can be used to evaluate student progress within each Program as well as across the Department, since it evaluates student performance at, above or below standard." However, program evaluations are likely to emerge when faculty members of each Program "discuss the results of the raw assessment data" and "submit a written report" regarding the "results of the data and perceived significance to the Program." While full departmental participation in this plan was expected during the 1997-1998 academic year, two of the Department's programs have already gathered relevant data, reported this information, and "made adjustments" to the programs based upon these data. While this plan should be applied to all of the programs within the Department, the efforts initiated satisfy and exceed the implementation expectations identified in the University's assessment plan timeline.

10. General Studies (Degree Program: Associate of Arts)

Approved in 1980-1981, this two-year, 62 semester hour, program first appeared in the undergraduate catalog in 1980-1982. It was designed for students who wished to pursue a general program tailored to their broader interests in liberal arts, but it was also designed to permit them to concentrate in a selected area. The program was designed to be particularly attractive to part-time or evening-only students who decided that pursuing a four-year degree program was either undesirable or unrealistic, or who found it necessary to interrupt their progress toward a baccalaureate degree.

More than most degree programs, this program is undergoing dramatic changes. The bachelor degree for this program is currently under active administrative consideration by the State of Indiana Commission on Higher Education. The proposal for this bachelor's program contains a preliminary assessment plan which is to be reconsidered by faculty when the program is formally approved. However, because a significant portion of the students involved in this program function under particularly unusual circumstances (incarceration), several traditional intended student outcomes--such as motivational, attitudinal and ethical dimensions--as well as temporal and environmental variables are beyond the control of an educational institution.

11. Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. in Anthropology; B.A./B.S. in Geography; B.A./B.S. in Geology; M.A. Geography; M.A. Geology; Ph.D. Geology; M.A. Earth Science)

The Department's programs span all levels from the bachelor through the Ph.D. degree. While these programs "differ," the Department believes that "similarities do outweigh dissimilarities." Additionally, the structure of the program (a combination of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology) allows "our students to gain a broader perspective in their disciplines and permits them to acquire useful tools for the workforce from other majors."

The Department's intended student outcomes are articulated as part of its list of information needs. These needs include information about cognitive, behavioral, and motivational/affective abilities (e.g., students' "intellectual growth, personal growth, and preparation for further education," "skills and knowledge, obtained within and outside of the classroom, that help a student achieve personal goals," "alumni involvement in departmental activities and in the Department's Alumni Committee affairs"). In this regard, the Department may find it helpful to articulate its intended student outcomes in the more traditional and behavioral objectives form recommended by Nichols who has suggested the use of, "Results-oriented statements of intended educational (student) outcomes" that "resemble statements describing what graduates or program completers will know (cognitive), think (attitudes), or do (behavioral and performance)."

In February of 1998, the Department requested and received funds to begin the process of identifying, selecting, and developing means and methods appropriate to measure student progress toward the achievement of the Department's intended student outcomes. These development efforts are to be undertaken by both faculty and students within the Department. A wide variety of instruments (e.g., "surveys, interviews, questionnaires, evaluations of facilities and equipment, and meetings with ISU administrators") are to be considered as potential assessment instruments.

In April of 1998, the Department plans to start some of the data collection processes that will allow them to formulate a departmental assessment plan, and the Department hopes that some of the results of this data collection process will produce conclusions that can be acted upon in May of 1998. In this regard, the Department anticipates that, by early June of 1998, it will "develop a Departmental plan to implement the recommendations for improvement gleaned from the assessment activities."

Given the Department's efforts to develop an assessment plan, data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been collected nor could they be reported at this time. Additionally, formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

12. Department of History (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. in History; M.A./M.S. History)

Cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral intended student outcomes for the Department's programs were articulated in 1995. These outcomes were particularly comprehensive, and as a formal report of student outcomes, they constitute particularly noteworthy, precise, and thoughtful statements.

In March of 1995, the Department's means or methods for assessing outcomes of its Social Science Education Program included faculty evaluations of student teaching plans and teaching demonstrations as well as completion of a standardized national test (e.g., the National Teacher's Examination). When this program underwent extensive reorganization and reconceptualization between 1996 and 1998, a more extensive scheme of assessment methods was adopted, including faculty evaluations of more diverse national test scores, papers constituting a portfolio, teaching plans, lesson materials, grade point average in teaching fields, and interviews with mentors. Data derived from these formal assessment methods were collected in 1997-1998. Formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the program itself.

As conceived in 1995, for its Undergraduate History Major, the Department proposed the use of portfolios evaluated by a three-person faculty committee. During academic year 1997-1998, these portfolios were scheduled to be evaluated. Additionally, a triennial survey of undergraduate majors and minors was scheduled to begin in the 1997-1998 academic year as well as a triennial survey of graduates of the undergraduate program. Data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

As conceived in 1995, for its Graduate History Program, the Department proposed an assessment plan including the results of the use of students' senior portfolios, oral Master's thesis defense, an exit interview, and a triennial questionnaire administered to all past graduates of the program. At present, there is no indication that the Department has begun to collect these data. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

13. Department of Humanities (Degree Programs: B.A. in Humanities; M.A. in Humanities)

In its March 1995 report, the Department identified four intended student outcomes for its program, predominately with a cognitive emphasis. The behavioral and motivational/attitudinal outcomes of the program remain unstated. Designed to begin when new majors enter the program in the Fall of 1995, the Department's outcomes are to be measured with student portfolios, compiled under the supervision of advisers. These portfolios are to be "evaluated and ranked at regular intervals to assess the student's progress and to determine the suitability of our courses to meet the goals of the program." In its April 1998 report, the Department reported that it is considering "some alteration of the General Mission Statement" which would emphasize a stronger "integrated collection of ideas, values, literary works, and art forms passed to us from preceding generations," but this alteration has not been "prompted by the student outcome assessment planning or implementation." In terms of its assessment plan, "there have been no significant changes." The Department continues to "maintain a `progress file' on selected majors to keep a record of performance in courses as well as research and writing. Faculty meet together to discuss a selected student's written work (much like a thesis committee for an M.A. student)." Regarding this procedure, the Department has reported that, "the procedure" seems "to work well. Because our major concern as educators in the humanities is to get our students to read and to write about a broad range of literary, philosophical, and art work, assessment of a student's progress need not be restricted to the judgment of a single faculty member. An added benefit is that faculty also are able to keep current with one another's thinking about matters which a student might write about." In this regard, the Department reports that it is maintaining a "permanent file" that allows "faculty to track the progress of our students." The interdisciplinary nature of students' work does, reports the Department, "make the tracking of a student somewhat more difficult." At this point, however, while the Department is collecting assessment data, there is no indication that the Department has provided a formal compilation of its assessment data nor is there any indication that the Department's assessment data have yet to generate program changes.

14. Department of Life Sciences (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Life Science; B.S. Clinical Laboratory Science; A.S. Clinical Laboratory Science; M.A./M.S. Life Sciences; M.S. Clinical Laboratory Science; Ph.D. Life Sciences)

The Department treats its graduate and undergraduate programs in Life Sciences as discrete.

The intended student outcomes of the Department's undergraduate programs are substantively similar to the outcomes governing its graduate program. Accordingly, the undergraduate programs' student outcomes are cognitive (i.e., "basic knowledge of general concepts in all areas of the biological sciences") and behavioral (e.g., "frame testable hypotheses," "analyze biological results using logical criteria," etc.). National standardized tests and post-graduation and employer questionnaires will also be used to evaluate this program. At present, there is no indication that the Department has begun to collect data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported. Moreover, from the reports received, it is unclear how results from national standardized tests will provide sufficiently specific suggestions for how to revise the graduate and undergraduate programs. Finally, formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves. As its revised December 1997 report indicates, the intended student outcomes of the Department's graduate programs are cognitive (i.e., "basic knowledge of general concepts in biological sciences") and behavioral (e.g., "comprehend complex problems," "frame testable hypotheses," etc.). Student scores from a national standardized test will be used to evaluate the programs. It is expected that this instrument will be administered for the first time in the Summer of 1998. Accordingly, at present, there is no indication that the Department has begun to collect data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods are yet to be reported, and formal assessment data collection efforts have yet to result in reports of changes in the programs themselves.

15. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Mathematics; B.S. Computer Science; M.A./M.S. Mathematics)

In its 1995 report, the Department identified, as its intended student outcomes, the ability to "compete successfully as a professional with the graduates of other institutions across the state and across the nation and/or to be able to successful in a graduate program at any university in the country." While the Department's objective is powerful and ambitious, its statement of intended student outcomes does not identify precise and operational cognitive, behavioral, and affective (motivational, attitudinal, and ethical) standards the program is designed to achieve. As Nichols has recommended, "Results-oriented statements of intended educational (student) outcomes should resemble statements describing what graduates or program completers will know (cognitive), think (attitudes), or do (behavioral and performance)." In terms of the means or methods used to measure student achievement, the Department employs a set of department-specific and standardized cognitive tests. While the Department should probably provide a more formal report of the results it has obtained, the results of these data collection efforts have provided a foundation for adjustments in the curriculum (i.e., a new course), examination of course admission standards, and development of a new entrance examination.

16. Department of Music (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Music; Bachelor of Music Education; Bachelor of Music; Bachelor of Music Performance; B.A./B.S. Music Theory; M.A. Music; Master of Music; Master of Music Education)

In its May 1995 report, the Department committed itself to the development of students who can "perform, teaching privately, teach in public or parochial schools, and pursue careers in the music industry." It particularly defined its intended student outcomes in terms of the course activities or processes students are expected to complete in terms of music theory, music history and literature, experiences in upper-division music courses as well as experiences in scoring and conducting, keyboard, applied music, ensembles, and recitals. While important statements about what students are expected to accomplish in its programs, the Department's more precise and operational statement of intended student outcomes in terms of cognitive, behavior, and motivational/attitudinal student outcomes are specified in the Department's description of its "performance" and "analysis" requirements of its programs on pages 3 to 5 of its May 1995 report. Indeed, it may be appropriate for the Department to undertake a revision of its assessment plan in order to extract formal statements of its intended student outcomes from these materials.

In terms of the means or methods used to measure student achievement, the Department has an extensive array of behavioral measures of student musical ability, but more restricted measures of student cognitive abilities and with little explicit attention given to how it develops and measures students' motivational/attitudinal understandings. The Department also measures its student achievements with "formal" surveys of its graduates "regarding their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the ISU Music programs in relation to the requirements and demands of the job market." However, the Department should consider moving from its "sporadic" administration of this alumni survey to a more periodic and systematic schedule of surveys. Likewise, while the Department recognizes the "success" of its graduates by virtue of their participation in "many colleges and universities in the U.S." and "in every field of commerce from music retailing to arts management," the Department also should consider providing a more formal set of measures for reporting these student achievements.

In terms of the collection of assessment data and the use of these data to affect its programs, in its March 19, 1998 report, the Department mentions only that its assessment plan "is implemented and successfully functioning." However, the Department has yet to report that it is collecting systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been reported. Finally, based upon the reports received, it is unclear how data assessment results are being employed to change in its programs.

17. Department of Philosophy (Degree Program: B.A. in Philosophy)

The Department has identified ten intended student outcomes with clearly articulated cognitive, behavioral, and motivational/attitudinal emphases. A portfolio is proposed as the primary measurement of student achievement. The critical thinking, ethics essay, and written paper components of the portfolio seem particularly appropriate to the program's intended student outcomes. Additionally, the use of a questionnaire seems to be an appropriate method for receiving input from students who have graduated from the program. In terms of the results derived from these methods, the Department has aptly underscored the small number of students who have elected to major in philosophy. At the same time, the Department needs to consider when and how it will actually collect systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been reported. Finally, based upon the reports provided by the Department, it is unclear if and how assessment results are being employed to change its program.

18. Department of Physics (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Physics; M.S. in Physics)

In its March 7, 1995, the Department's statement of intended student outcomes focused upon student cognition and specifically upon student understanding of concepts in physics and the development of behavioral skills such as "mathematical skills" and "scientific thinking," but little explicit attention is given to the identification of the appropriate motivations and attitudes students need to succeed in physics.

To measure student achievements along the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of its program, in its March 7 1995 report, the Department noted that it was beginning to develop a "senior creative experience" as its "principal assessment tool." In this 1995 report, how this "senior creative experience" would be used to measure student achievement was only briefly noted in a preliminary way. Additionally, on February 11, 1998, in a conference with two members of the Assessment Advisory Committee, the Department presented specific assessment data--derived from student responses to the Force Concept Inventory--regarding one of its courses, Physics 105. Preliminary results suggested that students registered in Physics 105 were learning physics, and that these students also did better (using grade point averages) in subsequent and related technology courses.

These endeavors reveal the host of creative options that can control the development of the Department's assessment plan. For example, the 1995 statement of intended student outcomes might be supplemented by some of the assumptions employed when student achievement was measured with the Force Conception Inventory in Physics 105. Likewise, the "senior creative experience" might continue to be an important part of the Department's assessment plan.

In its Spring 1998 report, the Department has reported "no significant changes in our academic program's assessment plan" and that student achievement in the graduate program has been "relatively satisfactory."

The Department has yet to report collecting systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes. In terms of these outcomes, the Department may also find it useful to consider a more comprehensive and developmental orientation in which assessment includes measures of students' cognitive, behavioral, and affective abilities when students first enter the program, at some midpoint in the program, when students leave the program, and at some fixed point after students have graduated. Additionally, the data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been reported. Finally, based upon the reports the Assessment Advisory Committee has received, it is unclear if or how data assessment results are being employed to change the Department's programs.

19. Department of Political Science (B.A./B.S. Political Science; M.A./M.S. in Political Sciences; Master of Public Administration)

In its May 14, 1996 report, the Department identified several intended student outcomes for its undergraduate programs, with a predominant focus on the cognitive ability of students to understand and master the five subfields of the discipline of political science. While behavioral and affective (motivational/attitudinal) abilities are recognized, specific outcomes in these areas are not identified. However, in its March 1998 report, the Department extended these intended student outcomes, outlining some six specific objectives, providing an appropriate balance of cognitive, behavioral, and affective abilities.

An impressive set of developmental assessment methods have been outlined to determine the "value added" of the programs. Using a questionnaire designed by the Department, student achievement levels are to be measured when students initially enter the program. Midway through the program, student achievement is again to be measured with a Department-generated questionnaire. And, at the end of the program, student achievement is to be measured in a senior capstone course. These methods are to be supplemented by the use of student portfolios maintained throughout the program, a standardized national examination, and "regular" alumni surveys.

The Department's data collection efforts have not been as comprehensive and complete as anticipated in its May 1996 report. Indeed, as reported in its March 1998 report, the Department has only been able to offer the senior capstone course during Spring 1998. During this course, pre- and post-test examinations were taken by students. Additionally, in this course, students completed employment and academic portfolios as well as a major scholarly research project. An informal report of these measures has suggested to the Department that theoretical and empirical analyses in courses and/or the curriculum adjustments should be considered by the faculty. While these program adjustments have not yet been determined or made, the Department has reported that the faculty is "contemplating" changes in these areas. Additionally, the Department is reconsidering its 1996 assessment plan as well as changes in the senior capstone course. In all, while more formal and systematic reports of assessment data would be desirable, the Department appropriately plans to use assessment data to adjust its programs.

20. Department of Psychology (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Psychology; Psy.D. Clinical Psychology; M.A./M.S. Psychology)

In terms of program assessment, the Department treats its undergraduate, master's, and Ph.D. programs as discrete.

In its 1995 report, the Department identified seven intended student outcomes of its program that provide an appropriate emphasis upon and balance of cognitive, behavioral and affective student abilities. In its 1995 report, the Department anticipated that the methods it would use to assess student outcomes would rely predominantly upon a "full array" of classroom evaluations of each student, with the provision that, "Grading in psychology courses is taken seriously, and grades in psychology are thus a reflection of what students have learned." However, in its March 1998 report, the Department seemed to adopt a more traditional set of assessment measures within a developmental context. In its March 1998 report, the Department suggested that it has elected to use a set of cognitive, library skills, critical thinking, and writing skill pre-tests when students enter the program (thereby establishing a "`baseline'") and a post-test over these same materials when students exit the program. Midway through the program, students would also be required to complete a program satisfaction and career-oriented "Progress Towards the Major Questionnaire." As students exit the program, they have completed the planned post-test. The Department has collected and reported assessment data from cross-sectional pilot studies conducted during Fall 1997 and Spring 1998. The Department has made preliminary evaluations of their students' achievement on the program's intended student outcomes. Additionally, based upon these findings, adjustments in the program are being considered by the faculty.

The Department's master's program is designed for students who "intend to pursue doctoral level study or study in another program with a terminal degree, such as a Master's in Social Work." Between the Fall of 1988 and Fall of 1995, almost 61% of students completing the master's program continued into doctoral or related graduate programs. Of those leaving the program before receiving a degree, 60% enrolled or completed work in other graduate programs. During the Fall 1998 semester, the Department plans to develop a set of intended student outcomes for this program, methods for assessing student progress towards these outcomes, and to devise procedures for using these assessment data to adjust the master's program.

In its 1995 report, the Department identified an array of 28 intended student outcomes for the Ph.D. program designed to provide students with a comprehensive balance of cognitive, behavioral, and affective abilities and skills. Eight assessment procedures are employed to measure student progress towards these outcomes while students are in the program, and an alumni survey will be designed to be given five years after students receive their Ph.D.s. "Summary data [of these assessment procedures] are then calculated" by the psychology faculty. In its March 1998 report, the Department has provided a formal report of its assessment outcomes for the 1997-1998 academic year. Based upon these data, program adjustments are to be undertaken by the faculty.

21. Department of Science Education (Degree Program: B.A./B.S. Science Education; M.A./M.S. Science Education)

In many respects, the Department's role is ambiguous from an institutional perspective. The Department functions in interdisciplinary ways across different departments and even across the College Arts and Sciences and the School of Education. Representatives from science units external to the Department strongly influence the offerings of the Department, and curriculum decisions in both the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Education affect this Department. Accordingly, in March of 1998, the Chair of the Department could understandably report that the, "Department of Science Education is a service department. The Department does not have a program; however, the faculty does work with students as they progress through the courses required in the secondary school science teaching sequence . . . . The science content of the [Science Education] major is determined by the respective science departments that provide the science courses for the degree program."

While these circumstances make the Department unique, at the same time, the Department functions within the standards for student achievement and student success established by NCA. The courses constituting the offerings of the Department may be controlled--if not determined--by other departments. At the same time, regardless of how a degree program is constituted or administered, NCA requires that the academic achievement of the students in the program must be assessed.

Two major structures are now in place that will create the assessment plan and implementation steps required by NCA. First, an interdisciplinary committee has been established to create an assessment plan and to assist in the implementation of this plan for the Department. Second, the Department falls within the province of the School of Education's efforts to implement the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) teacher standards.

While these assessment structures are now in place, technically it must be observed, in terms of the standards for measuring student academic achievement, the Department has yet to identify its intended student outcomes, identify appropriate methods for measuring student progress towards these outcomes, and report the collection of systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, the data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been reported and assessment results have not yet been employed to improve the Department's program.

22. Department of Social Work (Degree Program: Bachelor of Social Work)

The Department has identified twelve intended student outcomes of its program. These outcomes are designed to provide students with cognitive (e.g., "curriculum for classroom instruction and field practicum" and "pursue the MSW"), behavioral (e.g., "practice competently"), and motivational/attitudinal (e.g., "help students come to the recognition . . . the integral linkages . . . related to economic and social justice as well as environmental concerns and changing world-wide conditions" and "a strong emphasis on professional values and ethics"). The methods used to assess these outcomes are predominantly "summative measures" that focus on student achievements at the end of the program. These measures are particularly comprehensive and are generating especially rich and valuable information that the Department is using to make useful short- and long-term changes in its program. The Department's March 1998 summary of the assessment results it has collected is strikingly impressive in terms of its scope, completeness, and practical information about the effectiveness of its program. However, the Department may find it useful to adopt a more explicit developmental orientation in its selection of assessment methods. In its March 1998 report, the Department has indicated its willingness to explore more carefully a "value-added" orientation when assessing the program. Accordingly, the Department may be able to characterize student development more effectively if the Department adopts an entrance measure as well as another measure midway through the program.

23. Department of Sociology (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Sociology; M.A./M.S. Sociology)

In its March 1995 report, the Department's articulated six intended student outcomes designed to provide students with an appropriate set of understandings and abilities. However, these outcomes predominantly emphasize cognitive and behavioral orientations, without a corresponding statement of the attitudes and motivations students should develop in order to succeed. Additionally, the Department's March 1995 report identifies a wide array of methods that could be used to measure student progress towards the realization of the program's intended student outcomes. The Department's March 1998 report indicates that the Department has appropriately focused its attention as it develops its assessment methods. These methods currently being developed appear to have a developmental orientation, with an entry-level questionnaire developed by the Department to a foundation for determining the "knowledge entering freshmen have of sociology." This questionnaire will subsequently be administered to seniors to determine "how much the students going through the program are learning" and to determine "what changes in curriculum are needed to improve the program." Additionally, the Department is "now developing a capstone course which will be required of all seniors." Given its current efforts to develop its assessment methods, the Department has not yet collected systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, the data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been reported. Finally, data assessment results have yet to be employed to undertake changes in the Department's programs.

24. Department of Theater (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. in Theatre)

In its March 1995 report, the Department identified four intended student outcomes designed to provide students with an appropriate set of understandings and abilities. However, these outcomes predominantly emphasize cognitive and behavioral orientations, without a corresponding statement of the attitudes and motivations students should develop in order to succeed. Additionally, in its March 1995, the Department proposed the use of student portfolios to be evaluated when students enter the program, midway through program, at graduation, and even as a post-graduate measure. The extensive use of the portfolio reflects the performance and production orientation of the program. In its April 1998 report, the Department bypasses any discussion of the portfolio, and it discusses its use of expert and faculty observations, supervision, and evaluations of student performances and productions. This report suggests that Theater students are particularly active performers and extensively engaged in all areas of production. Moreover, this report suggests that faculty-student interactions are also an extensive and significant part of students' experiences in the program. Finally, the report suggests that the program supports the cognitive, behavioral and affective development of its students. At the same time, the Department may find it useful to return to the use of the student portfolio. The value of the portfolio as an assessment device in this program is powerfully articulated in the Department's March 1995 report. While expert and faculty evaluations of student performances and productions can be important feedback for students, a portfolio provides a more direct reflection of student talents in terms of students' cognitive, behavioral, and affective competencies. Moreover, as designed by the Department, the student portfolio would provide the Department with a student-based foundation for tracking student educational development and achievement from the time they enter the program, as they pass through and exit the program, and their subsequent extensions of their educational experience after students have left the program.

1. Department of Accounting (Degree Program: B.S. Accounting)

In its March 1995 report, the Department articulated four intended student outcomes that concisely but appropriately balance and emphasize cognitive (e.g., "possess the necessary technical and analytical skills"), behavioral (e.g., "possess adequate communication skills" and "the ability to think critically"), and affective (e.g., "understanding of business ethics and the code of professional conduct" and "appreciate that learning is a life-long process") abilities. While the March 1995 report outlined the use of a portfolio as the Department's method for assessing student achievement, the Department's March 1998 report details the use of a pre-test and post-test design to measure the "value added by our program." In its next assessment report next year, it would be helpful if the Department detailed the nature of this questionnaire even if it merely reports that the Department is using the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Level I and Level II examinations. In this regard, it would also be helpful if the Department's next annual assessment report noted whether or not the writing samples currently being collected are to be understood as the content of the student portfolio described in its March 1995 report. Finally, the Department reports that it is collecting assessment data, planning to report these data when sufficient information is collected, and that these data may be used to change "our program curriculum."

2. Department of Administrative Systems and Business Education (Degree Program: B.S. Administrative Office Systems; A.S. Secretarial Administration; B.S. Business Education; M.A./M.S. Business Education; M.A./M.S. Business Education)

In 1995, the Department submitted three discrete assessment plans for its two undergraduate programs (i.e., "Administrative Office Systems" and "Business Education") and for its graduate program (i.e., "Business Instructional Systems"). These plans contained an appropriate balance of cognitive, behavioral, and affective intended student outcomes. Additionally, each plan anticipated that it would use student portfolios to measure student achievement. And, each plan called for the collection of assessment data based upon these portfolios, reports of these data, and use of these data to make program changes. Moreover, exit-level and alumni assessment instruments are also be employed as assessment instruments. In its March 1998 report, the Department noted that its "assessment plans" were "implemented in Fall 1996," and that programs "are examined annually and are revised as needed." However, the Department has also reported that, "At this point, the mission and objectives of the programs have not been revised in conjunction with the assessment plans."

In terms of its "Business Education" program, the Department initiated "student portfolios" in the Fall of 1996, and "every semester faculty members are given a revised list of students enrolled in Business Education." Specifically, the Department has reported that "faculty members are placing entry and mid-program level documentation items in the portfolios." Faculty reviews of these portfolios are expected to occur at the end of the Spring 1998 semester.

In terms of its "Secretarial Administration" program, the Department has reported the same kind of progress and activities for this program are the same as those carried out for the "Business Education" program.

And, in terms of its "Administrative Office Systems" program, the Department has reported the same kind of progress and activities for this program are the same as those carried out for the "Business Education" program.

The Department's April 1998 report does not mention its graduate program (i.e., "Business Education").

Given the timeline governing each of the assessment plans in the Department, the Department has been collecting what appears to be systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes, but the data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been compiled and reported. Accordingly, data assessment results have yet to be employed to undertake changes in the Department's programs.

3. Department of Insurance and Risk Management (Degree Program: B.S. Insurance)

The Department did not provide an assessment plan in the Spring of 1995, because the Department was not created until Fall of 1995. Additionally, the Department did not provide an annual assessment report in April of 1998, because this report was contained in its April 1998 Assessment Advisory Committee implementation grant proposal. This grant proposal provides the foundation for describing the Department's assessment efforts.

The Department's intended student outcomes are provided in an appendix to its April 1998 grant proposal. In this appendix, the Department has identified thirteen activities "insurance major students should be able to demonstrate." These activities specify a wide array but coherent and comprehensive set of cognitive, behavioral, and motivational/attitudinal abilities. To measure student achievement in terms of these intended student outcomes, the Department plans to "conduct exit interviews of all graduating majors and minors" as well as conduct an "alumni survey." These efforts have been underway since the summer of 1997, "throughout the 1997-1998 academic year, improvements have been made in the database," and the "database" now contains information about "over 300 alumni." These data will be used to make adjustments in the program: "Results from the surveys and interviews will be used at the department level and communicated to our industry advisory council." When available, the Department should provide a report of the data derived from its formal assessment method as well as indications of how these data have been employed to undertake changes in the Department's program.

4. Department of Management and Finance (Degree Programs: B.S. Finance; B.S. Management)

In December of 1996, the Department provided an assessment plan for its management program and a distinct assessment plan for its finance program.

The intended student outcomes for the management program cross cognitive, behavioral, and affective domains, including standards for student achievement as leaders, planners, decision-makers, and system integrators. To achieve these outcomes, the program formulated a student outcomes assessment task force charged with identifying key assessment purposes, designing appropriate student questionnaires and "other assessment tools," and designing alumni/employer surveys. These assessment methods were to be completed by the Fall of 1997. Implementations of these student outcome assessment methods were to "proceed in the Fall of 1998." The management program plans to submit its annual assessment report in mid-May 1998. Accordingly, the program has not provided a formal indication that its assessment methods have been selected, and it is not known if assessment data have been collected, reported, or employed as a foundation to change the curriculum.

The intended student outcomes for the finance program include some ten specific outcomes, predominantly linked to student understanding and mastery of specific cognitive knowledge. Particular behavioral and affective (motivational, attitudinal, and ethical dimensions related to student success outcomes) understandings are not as clearly articulated as they might be in terms of Nichols' observation that, "Results-oriented statements of intended educational (student) outcomes should resemble statements describing what graduates or program completers will know (cognitive), think (attitudes), or do (behavioral and performance).". Paralleling the efforts of the faculty in the management program, to achieve these outcomes, the finance program formulated a student outcomes assessment task force charged with identifying key assessment purposes, designing appropriate student questionnaires and "other assessment tools," and designing alumni/employer surveys. These assessment methods were to be completed by the Fall of 1997. Implementations of these student outcome assessment methods were to "proceed in the Fall of 1998." The finance program plans to submit its annual assessment report in mid-May 1998. Accordingly, the program has not provided a formal indication that its assessment methods have been selected, and it is not known if assessment data have been collected, reported, or employed as a foundation to change the curriculum.

5. Department of Marketing (Degree Program: B.S. Marketing)

In its March 1995 report, the Department's identified seven intended student outcomes of its program which predominantly emphasized cognitive and behavioral abilities. Motivational, attitudinal, and ethical orientations and abilities related to success in the program are not as specifically specified as the cognitive and behavioral outcomes of the program. The methods selected to measure student progress are intentionally designed to track the development of student abilities from students' entrance into the program, through a key mid-point in the program, through the completion of the program. Specifically, entrance examination, a mid-program interview, a senior capstone course, and alumni/employer surveys are identified as key assessment measurements. The integration and interpretation of the results from these instrument is to be a function of the faculty of the program. In its April 1998 report, the Department noted that program entrance measurements were to be change. Specifically, the Department reported it was "still in the process of revising its assessment plan for the marketing major. The primary challenge that we face is the inability to conduct measurement at the freshmen level. However, given that the School of Business will require all incoming freshmen to enroll in two freshmen level business courses, we will now have access to our marketing majors in Fall 1998. We are thus redesigning our plan based on this `new' access. The assessment will consist of both an objective measurement tool (a multiple choice exam covering marketing concepts) and a subjective measurement tool (a personal marketing plan) beginning in the freshmen year and continued to the senior year. Our goal is to have the revised plan in place for Fall 1998." Given its decision to redesign its assessment methods, the Department has not yet collected systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes. Additionally, the data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been reported. Finally, data assessment results have yet to be employed to undertake changes in the Department's programs.

6. Department of Systems and Decision Sciences (Degree Programs: B.S. Management Information Systems; B.S. Business Administration and Management)

The Department has provided a different assessment plan for its undergraduate program ("Management Information Systems") and its graduate program ("Master of Business Administration").

The Department's undergraduate assessment plan contains a set of eight intended student outcomes emphasizing cognitive, behavioral, and motivational/attitudinal abilities. At the entry-level, a Student Information Questionnaire is used as the method of assessment for providing a baseline of student understandings and abilities. Additionally, a student portfolio is established for each student entering the program. The portfolio continues to be the primary assessment method for evaluating student achievement midway through and at the end of the program. "Post-graduation assessments are to be carried out every two years to graduates of the preceding three years to determine the graduate's perception of the adequacy of his/her preparation after joining the work force." Additionally, "employers of graduates (of the past three years) will be surveyed every two years to determine adequacy of preparation and relevance of the program." Finally, members of the Management Information Systems Advisory Board" periodically will be asked to evaluate the program for relevancy." In its April 1995 report, the Department reported that it planned to begin these assessment procedures in 1996.

In its April 1998 report, the Department outlined several actions taken regarding its undergraduate program. Graduating students have been interviewed to determine placement in industry, satisfaction student responses have been sought, and student recommendations for program improvement have been received. Based upon results from these actions, the Department has incorporated new information systems linking alumni to each other as well as alumni and faculty. Additionally, the Department's advisory board has recommended the addition of a new course in network management, and the Department also received a grant to create a related network administration laboratory. Finally, the Department surveyed alumni and offered alumni the option of forwarding an employer survey to his/her immediate supervisors. Of the 172 sent out, 34 alumni and 17 employer surveys have been returned. A preliminary report of these results has been generated and submitted to the Assessment Advisory Committee. The Department is currently determining how these assessment data might be employed to undertake changes in the Department's undergraduate programs.

At this point, the Department has yet to provide a report regarding implementation of its graduate assessment plan. Accordingly, the Department has not reported collecting systematic assessment data relevant to the intended student outcomes of its graduate program. Additionally, the data derived from formal assessment methods related to the graduate program have not yet been reported. Finally, data assessment results have yet to be employed to undertake changes in the Department's graduate program. School of Education

1. Department of Communication Disorders and Special Education (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Speech-Language Pathology; B.A./B.S. Special Education; M.A./M.S. Communication Disorders/Speech-Language Pathology; M.A./M.S. Special Education).

2. Department of Counseling (Degree Programs: M.Ed. School Counselor; M.A./M.S. Agency Counseling; M.S. Marriage and Family Therapy; M.A./M.S. College Student Personnel Work; Ed.S. Guidance; Ph.D. Guidance and Psychological Services with a specialization in Counseling Psychology, Counselor Education, or Student Personnel Work in Higher Education)

3. Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. School Media Services; M.A./M.S. Educational Media; M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction; Ed.S. Curriculum and Instruction; Ph.D. Curriculum and Instruction)

4. Department of Educational and School Psychology (Degree Programs: M.A./M.S. Educational Psychology; M.A. School Psychology; Ed.S. School Psychology; Ph.D. Guidance and Psychological Services with a specialization in School Psychology)

5. Department of Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations (Degree Programs: M.Ed. Elementary School Administration and Supervision; M.Ed. Secondary School Administration and Supervision; Ed.S. School Administration; Ph.D. Educational Administration)

6. Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education (Degree Programs: B.A/B.S. Early Childhood Education; A.A.S. Child Development and Early Childhood Education; B.A./B.S. Kindergarten-Primary Education; B.A./B.S. Elementary Education; M.Ed. Early Childhood Education; M.Ed. Elementary Education--Kindergarten/Primary; M.Ed. Elementary Education; M.Ed. Reading; Ed.S. Curriculum and Instruction with a specialization in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, or Reading; Ph.D. Elementary Education).

Each of these School of Education departments has provided a complete and detailed assessment plan for each of its undergraduate degree programs as well as its graduate degree programs. Each of these plans contains specific intended student outcomes, precise developmental methods for assessing student achievement throughout the programs, and procedures for collecting data, reporting data, and using assessment data to make adjustments in the programs. Copies of each of these plans are readily available for inspection.

However, the programs within the School of Education are essentially professional programs which are licensed by the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) which has required that School of Education programs be built around teacher standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). Undergraduate program are to be in compliance by the Fall of 1998, while graduate programs must be in compliance by the year 2002. Accordingly, as the School of Education indicated in its April 1998 report, "During the past twelve months, the faculty of the School of Education's academic programs . . . have been heavily involved in planning for the creation of assessment systems mandated by the IPSB." To meet the requirements of the licensure process, the School of Education has created a Educator Preparation Assessment Committee to "facilitate the University's assessment activities which are responding to the requirements of the IPSB." By way of the use of four Assessment Consultation Group teams and various ad hoc committees, School of Education programs are increasing being adjusted to IPSB's INTASC requirements.

It should be noted, however, that as the School of Education initiates the actions required to comply with IPSB's INTASC requirements, the various academic programs of the School of Education are also satisfying the spirit as well as all of the policy, procedural, and applied assessment requirements established by the NCA. An extended example demonstrates this claim. The Department of Communication Disorders and Special Education has recently completed its adjustment to IPSB's INTASC requirements. Accordingly, the Department has adopted a development assessment framework in which student coursework performance as well as related admissions and adviser information is collected during the "entry level" stage. During the "mid-level" stage, student coursework performance, reports and evaluations of student clinical experiences, and summaries of faculty reviews are collected. During the "exit level" stage, additional coursework performance, clinical experience, and faculty reviews of the students are collected which are supplemented by assessments of students' capstone course experiences and the results of student oral presentations. In all, then, compliance with IPSB's INTASC requirements also provides, both in spirit and practice, compliance with NCA's student outcome assessment objectives.

1. Department of Athletic Training (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Athletic Training; M.A./M.S. Athletic Training)

In its March 1995 report, the Department identified five intended student outcomes, predominantly behavioral, emphasizing skills related to sports medicine and program administration. To measure these outcomes, course examinations and standardized tests were proposed as the program's assessment methods. In its 1997-1998 report, the Department provided a more formal set of tests (including national standardized tests) and provided a more complete schedule for the administration of these tests. In addition, the Department reported its student results on the NATA Board of Certification Examination as well as program changes to be undertaken because of these data.

2. Department of Health and Safety (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Health and Safety; B.A./B.S. Community Health Education; B.A./B.S. Environmental Health Sciences; M.A./M.S. Health and Safety)

In its March 1995 report, the Department identified the goals of its programs, emphasizing content areas that would be delivered to students in the curriculum. These goals are difficult to identify as intended student outcomes in the sense proposed by Nichols when he noted that, "Results-oriented statements of intended educational (student) outcomes should resemble statements describing what graduates or program completers will know (cognitive), think (attitudes), or do (behavioral and performance)." In this regard, several of these goals might be recast as intended student outcomes with a strong cognitive orientation. Other goals--such as "sensitize students to recognize the abilities and needs of mankind" and "impart knowledge and provide experiences that will encourage continuing self-education and self-development"--are decidedly motivational and attitudinal in nature, but they are not clearly unique to a health and safety management program. To measure these outcomes, in its March 1995 report, national standardized examinations were proposed. In its April 1998 report, the Department has reported changes in its assessment methods, moving from its planned national standardized examinations in 1995 to the use of student portfolios, developmental advising, certification examination scores, and evaluations of student teaching and internship experiences. The precise ways in which these methods are to be used to provide systematic assessment data have yet to be reported. At this point in time, it is unclear that assessment data relevant to intended student outcomes have been collected, reported, and can be used as the foundation for the curriculum changes identified.

3. Department of Physical Education (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Physical Education; B.A./B.S. Physical Education Sports Studies; M.A./M.S. Physical Education)

The intended student outcomes of the Department's programs vary little. In one program, they are identified as "general objectives" designed "to ensure student will" possess a set of cognitive abilities and set of behavioral skills revealed during "an internship." However, in greater detail, all three programs provide a set of "outcome criteria" related to program objectives such as "scientific foundations," "fitness-oriented activities," "physiological responses to exercises," and so forth. The assessment methods used to measure student progress toward the completion of these outcome criteria rely predominantly upon achieving certain minimum grades in courses. However, as an assessment device, grades are frequently identified as instruments of limited value for measuring intended student outcomes. The American Council on Education has reported, "An interesting aspect of the GPA is that it tells us very little about what a student actually knows or what the student's competencies or talents really are. That is, the primary information contained in a course grade pertains to the student's performance in relation to other students. . . . Harris (1970) studied the relationship between course grades and actually learning [and found that] . . . course grades appear to a relatively poor indicator of how much students are actually learning in a course. In short, course grades appear to be a relatively poor indicator of how much students are actually learning in a course. Rather, what they tell us is how well the students are performing in relation to one another at a particular point in time." In its April 1998 report, the Department reported that the teacher education program "will undergo significant curricular revision" while the changes in the sports students curriculum "will not be as far reaching." It remains unclear, however, whether assessment data derived from measures of student progress toward the programs intended student outcomes have been collected, have been reported, and have been used as the foundation for the curriculum changes identified.

4. Department of Recreation and Sports Management (Degree Program: B.S. Recreation and Sport Management; M.A./M.S. Recreation and Sport Management)

In its April 1998 report, the Department outlined its undergraduate assessment methods as a series of three courses, including a "cornerstone," "keystone," and "capstone" course. Additionally, the Department reports that it will conduct an alumni and an employer survey during the 2002-2003 academic year. The Department reports that it plans to employ comprehensive examinations of its students as well as an alumni and an employer survey in the 2002-2003 academic year. It remains unclear, however, that assessment data derived from measures of student progress toward the programs intended student outcomes have been collected, have been reported, and are to be used as the foundation for the curriculum changes identified.

In its April 1998 assessment grant application, the School of Nursing revisited its April 1995 assessment plan. The School has decided to offer a reconception of its assessment goals and procedures. In essence, the School has decided to begin its assessment efforts anew.

Accordingly, in its April 1998 report, the School has identified seven intended student outcomes within a developmental framework, covering the period when a student enters the program through a series of alumni and employer interviews after students graduate from the program. Additionally, the intended student outcomes emphasize a balance of cognitive, behavioral, and motivational/attitudinal abilities.

To bring this plan into existence, the School plans to hold a two-day workshop in the Fall of 1998 specifically designed to deal with "student outcomes." Additionally, the "workshop will look at methods of data collection and tool development." Among the instrument considered will be a critical thinking test, interview systems, survey methods, and portfolios. Following the workshop, the School plans to conduct telephone interviews with "staff, clinical agencies, alumni and employers with the understanding to collect data, to correlate with the master plan of assessing student outcomes."

1. Department of Aerospace Technology (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Aerospace Administration; B.A./B.S. Professional Pilot; A.S. General Aviation Flight Technology)

In its March 1995 report, the Department identified a set of cognitive and behavioral intended student outcomes for its programs. Additionally, in its March 1995 report, the Department proposed a series of entrance, mid-program, exit, and alumni measurements to be conducted with examinations, interviews, a senior capstone course, and surveys to measure student progress towards the completion of the program. In April of 1998, the Department reported that there had been no revisions in the goals of its academic program, and that "no data has been collected related to student outcome assessment." Changes in the leadership of the Department have occurred, and information transfer difficulties arose during this period. Accordingly, in 1998, responsibility for leading the faculty in the development and implementation of the Department's assessment plan has been assumed by a new faculty member.

2. Department of Electronic and Computer Technology (Degree Programs: B.S. Biomedical Electronics Technology; B.S. Computer Hardware Technology; B.A./B.S. Electronics and Computer Technology; B.S. Electronics Technology; B.S. Instrumentation and Control Technology; A.S. Electronics and Computer Technology; M.S. Electronics and Computer Technology; M.S. Industrial Technology)

The Department's assessment plans for its three undergraduate programs are essentially the same procedurally. However, its graduate assessment program plan is substantively different in design and purpose than the undergraduate assessment plans.

The Department's "intended skill outcomes" for its computer hardware technology, electronics technology, and biomedical electronics technology programs are organized in similar ways, several of the outcomes are worded exactly the same, and where differences exist in program outcomes, the differences appear to be tied directly and solely to technological and technical differences in the programs. Additionally, all three assessment plans adopt the same assessment philosophy and purpose, and all three adopt the same development procedure emphasizing the same preliminary, mid-program, post-test, and alumni/employer surveys to measure student achievement. Finally, all three proposed the same timeframe, identifying the same components, same preparation periods, and same implementation dates. The Department's April 1998 report indicates the assessment methods have been applied as scheduled, and "the preliminary evaluation was accomplished in 1997 as per our timeline." Additionally, the Department has reported that:

Moreover, regarding the capstone class, the Department has reported that the faculty are "working to develop its protocol in the Spring of 1998 as per the timeline." Finally, the Department has identified some five revisions in its undergraduate programs "due to assessment."

In its 1995 report, the Department has identified twenty predominantly cognitive and behavioral "intended skill outcomes" for its graduate programs. Four assessment methods are used to measure student achievement, including a determination that all students have met the program's entrance requirements, an application assessment involving the completion of a major project or master's thesis, completion of a capstone course, and the administration of alumni/employer surveys. Unfortunately, in its April 1998 report, the Department does not provide a specific analysis of its master's programs. It remains unclear if the Department has collected assessment data regarding its graduate program, if these data have been reported, and if these assessment data are to be used as the foundation for graduate program adjustments.

3. Department of Industrial and Mechanical Technology (Degree Programs: B.A./B.S. Industrial Automotive Technology; B.A./B.S. Mechanical Technology; B.A./B.S. Packaging Technology; B.S. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Technology; B.A./B.S. General Industrial Technology; A.S. Industrial Technology; M.S. Industrial Technology)

In May of 1995, the Department submitted an assessment plan for each of its five undergraduate programs. Each plan provided a set of intended student outcome appropriate for its program. Each plan outlines a set of methods to measure student achievement, including co-op/internship evaluation, the development of a placement record, an alumni survey, an employer survey, course examinations, completion of a nation standardized test, and the use of student portfolios when appropriate. The Department requested funds to develop and implement these assessment procedures, and the Assessment Advisory Committee provided the funding requested. In its April 1998 report, the Department has detailed its actions related to each of its assessment methods, apparently expanded its assessment methods (to include academic advising, peer advising, follow-ups, etc.), and it has identified some nine program "revisions due to assessment."

4. Department of Industrial Technology Education (Degree Programs: B.S. Human Resource Development; B.S. Technology Education; B.S. Vocational-Technical Education; A.S. Vocational Trade-Industrial-Technical Education; M.A./M.S. Vocational Technical Education; M.S. Human Resource Development; M.A./M.S. Technology Education)

In its March and April 1995 reports, the Department identified predominantly cognitive and behavioral "intended skill outcomes" for all of its undergraduate and graduate programs. Student achievement in each program is to be measured with: an entrance requirement to determine that students possess minimum abilities to participate in the program; a mid-program review; satisfactory completion of a capstone course; input from an advisory committee; and an alumni survey of student graduates three and five years after graduation. In its April 1998 report, the Department identified five activities undertaken to implement its assessment plans. Additionally, it has also identified the "problems" it has "encountered" while undertaking program adjustments. Finally, the Department has identified "changes in the department based on assessment activities" as well as adjustments in its timeline, program mission, and the collection of assessment data. The Department has concluded that "full implementation" of its assessment plan "will not be possible without the funds necessary to provide release time for faculty to work on the assessment process and collect data."

5. Department of Manufacturing and Construction Technology (Degree Programs: B.S. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Technology, B.S. Construction Technology; B.S. Manufacturing Technology; B.A./B.S. Printing Management; B.A./B.S. General Industrial Supervision; A.S. Architectural Technology; A.S. Manufacturing Supervision; M.S. Industrial Technology)

In its March 1995 reports, the Department identified five to six predominantly cognitive and behavioral intended student outcomes for each of its programs. Additionally, it proposed the use of alumni and employer surveys, course evaluations, and the use of graduate rates and grade point averages to measure student progress toward its intended student outcomes. In its April 1998 report, the Department reported that its used its Assessment Advisory Committee grant to support advisory committee meetings and to employ a "student worker" to "analyze and compare the stated objectives of the required courses offered by each program area and the stated objectives for each major. A substantial matching was noted." In terms of the collection of assessment data, the Department has reported that it has "just completed a self-study and on-site review by a National Association for Industrial Technology accreditation team. Final results will not be known until September of 1998, however, the preliminary report gave each program conditional accreditation, pending additional information." Additionally, Departmental advisory committees have been active. However, given the timeline governing each of the assessment plans in the Department, the Department has been collecting what appears to be systematic assessment data relevant to its intended student outcomes, but the data derived from formal assessment methods have not yet been compiled and reported. Accordingly, data assessment results have yet to be employed to undertake changes in the Department's programs.