Cooperation 23% 58% 20% Development and 14% 61% 25% Table 4: Ethical Decision Making Fall 2013 – Ethical Decision Making Does not Meet Meets Exceeds (n = 24) Expectations Expectations Expectations Identification of an ethical issue 4% 58% 38% Stakeholder Analysis 13% 46% 41% Implication / Consequences 25% 67% 8% Conclusion / Solution 13% 63% 24% 5: Analytical Problem Solving Fall 2013 – Analytical Problem Solving Does not Meet Meets Exceeds (n = 26) Expectations Expectations Expectations Concepts 4% 58% 38% Information 0% 58% 42% Analytical Operations 12% 73% 15% Interpretation 12% 69% 19% Assessment reports of this process are disseminated each semester, typically during the designated University Assessment Day, and discussed with faculty and are also used as the basis for making program-level modifications (see, Appendix for hyperlinks to assessment evidence for other program learning goals during the 2008 2012 period). – Our self-review also related to concerns raised by the most recent Peer Review Team that noted some additional weaknesses in our AOL processes. Some program-level assessments are conducted in sophomore-level classes (some communication and technology use learning goal assessment); therefore, results might not be the best indicator of student performance close to graduation. As a result, decisions were made to move these assessments to students at the senior level. Further, it was recognized that better communication of the program-level assessment process is required so that faculty have a better shared understanding of the process. To this end, we have addressed AOL issues in additional faculty meetings beyond the designated assessment day meetings where faculty have been made aware of deficiencies and where faculty input has helped address deficiencies. Specifically, topics related to learning goals and objectives, performance benchmarks, assessment data collection and scheduling, evaluation processes, and the loop” topics have been addressed in spring and fall “closing faculty meetings. An important issue discussed in the Spring 2013 semester was the need to clarify roles and responsibilities in the AOL system. Defining goals and objectives, aligning curriculum, identifying measures, and acting upon AOL outcomes and overall AOL communication will be coordinated by the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee (TLAC) while the yearly collecting, analyzing, organizing, and disseminating results will be coordinated by the Dean’s office. Since some membership changes yearly on the TLAC (based on faculty elections) for the sake of continuity, all assessment data will be housed in the Dean’s office.
Cooperation 23% 58% 20% Development and 14% 61% 25% Table 4: Ethical Decision Making – Fall 2013 Ethical Decision Making (n = 24) Does not Meet Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations Identification of an ethical issue 4% 58% 38% Stakeholder Analysis 13% 46% 41% Implication / Consequences 25% 67% 8% Conclusion / Solution 13% 63% 24% 5: Analytical Problem Solving – Fall 2013 Analytical Problem Solving (n = 26) Does not Meet Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations Concepts 4% 58% 38% Information 0% 58% 42% Analytical Operations 12% 73% 15% Interpretation 12% 69% 19% Assessment reports of this process are disseminated each semester, typically during the designated University Assessment Day, and discussed with faculty and are also used as the basis for making program-level modifications (see, Appendix for hyperlinks to assessment evidence for other program learning goals during the 2008 – 2012 period). Our self-review also related to concerns raised by the most recent Peer Review Team that noted some additional weaknesses in our AOL processes. Some program-level assessments are conducted in sophomore-level classes (some communication and technology use learning goal assessment); therefore, results might not be the best indicator of student performance close to graduation. As a result, decisions were made to move these assessments to students at the senior level. Further, it was recognized that better communication of the program-level assessment process is required so that faculty have a better shared understanding of the process. To this end, we have addressed AOL issues in additional faculty meetings beyond the designated assessment day meetings where faculty have been made aware of deficiencies and where faculty input has helped address deficiencies. Specifically, topics related to learning goals and objectives, performance benchmarks, assessment data collection and scheduling, evaluation processes, and “closing the loop” topics have been addressed in spring and fall faculty meetings. An important issue discussed in the Spring 2013 semester was the need to clarify roles and responsibilities in the AOL system. Defining goals and objectives, aligning curriculum, identifying measures, and acting upon AOL outcomes and overall AOL communication will be coordinated by the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee (TLAC) while the yearly collecting, analyzing, organizing, and disseminating results will be coordinated by the Dean’s office. Since some membership changes yearly on the TLAC (based on faculty elections) for the sake of continuity, all assessment data will be housed in the Dean’s office.