Fall 2015 Report to the HLC Assessment Academy

Describe the project you developed at the Roundtable. Focus particularly on the general strategies you developed. (500 words)
At the Assessment Roundtable in Oakbrook, our 8-person faculty assessment team conceived a 4-year project with a theme for each year (click here to review, or see attachment). Our broad goals: To orient learning at the University around a set of University-wide Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs), so that every course and program contributes to students achieving these outcomes. Build processes of teaching, assessment, planning, and budgeting around continuous improvement of teaching and learning, as defined by these outcomes. The theme of Year 1 is “Strengthening the Foundation.” During this year we will align all University documents around student learning and our ELOs (click here to view) ask faculty to begin aligning their individual course objectives, learning activities, and assessments with ELOs in the courses they are teaching this year (using a “Suskie chart” — see below), so that by this time next year all courses have been upgraded in this manner. The themes of Years 2 and 3 are “Gathering Evidence” and “Analyzing and Using Evidence.” During this period we will identify a smaller number of high-impact ELOs to define and measure across the curriculum — in major programs and general education, but particularly among graduating students. Year 4 continues the activities of Years 2 and 3 but shifts the emphasis to documenting improved core processes of teaching, assessment, planning, reporting, and budgeting — and to documenting student learning in the priority ELOs. We plan by the end of the four years to have made changes in the curriculum, to have measured a second group of graduating students in the 3-5 priority ELOs, and to see improvements in performance levels. Our chief strategies thus far are: To require all faculty to add a chart to their syllabus (which we call the “Suskie Chart,” after a similar chart proposed by Linda Suskie) of learning objectives, activities, and assessments for every course they teach. Each course syllabus will also include the list of ELOs — and show which learning outcomes support which ELOs (see chart template here). To assess the degree to which the ELOs already infuse the curriculum at the course level, using the Suskie Charts the faculty develop. To have major programs and general education faculty map the ELOs to their courses, based on the faculty work in identifying how their own courses already support the ELOs, and then step back to determine the sufficiency of the entire curriculum in addressing the full set of ELOs. To strengthen processes for student reflection on their learning in each course. We will add questions to our Mid- and End-of-Course Feedback forms asking students to comment on the degree to which they feel they met the course learning outcomes — and the faculty will then use these responses as the basis for class discussion and reflection in the middle and at the end of each course. To involve student groups in helping to define and measure the ELOs across the curriculum. To recognize faculty and departments who contribute significantly to defining and measuring student learning in their courses and programs. To develop processes for reporting, inviting comment, and otherwise keeping the whole student learning improvement plan transparent to students, faculty, and administration.
Gantt Chart of Project MIU Essential Learning Outcomes Chart Developed at Roundtable Adapted Suskie Chart for Syllabi

Describe the project you developed at the Roundtable. Focus particularly on the general strategies you developed. (500 words)

At the Assessment Roundtable in Oakbrook, our 8-person faculty assessment team conceived a 4-year project with a theme for each year (click here to review, or see attachment). Our broad goals:

To orient learning at the University around a set of University-wide Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs), so that every course and program contributes to students achieving these outcomes.
Build processes of teaching, assessment, planning, and budgeting around continuous improvement of teaching and learning, as defined by these outcomes.

The theme of Year 1 is “Strengthening the Foundation.” During this year we will

align all University documents around student learning and our ELOs (click here to view)
ask faculty to begin aligning their individual course objectives, learning activities, and assessments with ELOs in the courses they are teaching this year (using a “Suskie chart” — see below), so that by this time next year all courses have been upgraded in this manner.

The themes of Years 2 and 3 are “Gathering Evidence” and “Analyzing and Using Evidence.” During this period we will identify a smaller number of high-impact ELOs to define and measure across the curriculum — in major programs and general education, but particularly among graduating students.

Year 4 continues the activities of Years 2 and 3 but shifts the emphasis to documenting improved core processes of teaching, assessment, planning, reporting, and budgeting — and to documenting student learning in the priority ELOs. We plan by the end of the four years to have made changes in the curriculum, to have measured a second group of graduating students in the 3-5 priority ELOs, and to see improvements in performance levels.

Our chief strategies thus far are:

To require all faculty to add a chart to their syllabus (which we call the “Suskie Chart,” after a similar chart proposed by Linda Suskie) of learning objectives, activities, and assessments for every course they teach. Each course syllabus will also include the list of ELOs — and show which learning outcomes support which ELOs (see chart template here).
To assess the degree to which the ELOs already infuse the curriculum at the course level, using the Suskie Charts the faculty develop.
To have major programs and general education faculty map the ELOs to their courses, based on the faculty work in identifying how their own courses already support the ELOs, and then step back to determine the sufficiency of the entire curriculum in addressing the full set of ELOs.
To strengthen processes for student reflection on their learning in each course. We will add questions to our Mid- and End-of-Course Feedback forms asking students to comment on the degree to which they feel they met the course learning outcomes — and the faculty will then use these responses as the basis for class discussion and reflection in the middle and at the end of each course.
To involve student groups in helping to define and measure the ELOs across the curriculum.
To recognize faculty and departments who contribute significantly to defining and measuring student learning in their courses and programs.
To develop processes for reporting, inviting comment, and otherwise keeping the whole student learning improvement plan transparent to students, faculty, and administration.

Gantt Chart of Project

MIU Essential Learning Outcomes

Chart Developed at Roundtable

Adapted Suskie Chart for Syllabi

How will your project contribute to making assessment an activity that leads to the improvement of student learning?
The overarching goal, mentioned above, is to make the entire curriculum ELO-centric — to place the Essential Learning Outcomes as the central goals at the course, program, and institutional levels. The first step, completed in Year 1, is to review the University’s mission and vision statements and core values to ensure they are aligned with the Essential Learning Outcomes. This exercise should help bring student learning to the forefront of institutional awareness. The second major Year 1 initiative involves aligning learning objectives with learning activities and assessments in every course, by means of the Suskie Chart. We will hold monthly workshops to assist faculty in creating Suskie Charts for upcoming courses. This will ensure that (a) each course syllabus expresses this alignment and that (b) assessment serves improved student learning (of course objectives). Years 2 and 3 will focus on gathering, and then analyzing and using, evidence to support continuous improvement at every level. This process will be fueled by extended conversations among students, faculty, and program directors about what the priority ELOs mean, how they are measured, and what these measurements tell us about student learning and growth. In Years 2 and 3, we also analyze course-embedded assessments of priority ELOs, especially among seniors. This will better enable us to improve institutional planning, reporting, and budgeting processes that support improved student learning. Improving student learning at the course level will drive overall improved student learning, but departmental and institutional processes will reinforce that focus. At the program level, we will ensure that student learning becomes central to assessment by asking program directors to regularly report their evidence for change in student learning outcomes. These strategies will maintain a campus-wide focus on using assessment for continuously improving student learning.

How will your project contribute to making assessment an activity that leads to the improvement of student learning?

The overarching goal, mentioned above, is to make the entire curriculum ELO-centric — to place the Essential Learning Outcomes as the central goals at the course, program, and institutional levels.

The first step, completed in Year 1, is to review the University’s mission and vision statements and core values to ensure they are aligned with the Essential Learning Outcomes. This exercise should help bring student learning to the forefront of institutional awareness.

The second major Year 1 initiative involves aligning learning objectives with learning activities and assessments in every course, by means of the Suskie Chart. We will hold monthly workshops to assist faculty in creating Suskie Charts for upcoming courses. This will ensure that (a) each course syllabus expresses this alignment and that (b) assessment serves improved student learning (of course objectives).

Years 2 and 3 will focus on gathering, and then analyzing and using, evidence to support continuous improvement at every level. This process will be fueled by extended conversations among students, faculty, and program directors about what the priority ELOs mean, how they are measured, and what these measurements tell us about student learning and growth.

In Years 2 and 3, we also analyze course-embedded assessments of priority ELOs, especially among seniors. This will better enable us to improve institutional planning, reporting, and budgeting processes that support improved student learning. Improving student learning at the course level will drive overall improved student learning, but departmental and institutional processes will reinforce that focus.

At the program level, we will ensure that student learning becomes central to assessment by asking program directors to regularly report their evidence for change in student learning outcomes.

These strategies will maintain a campus-wide focus on using assessment for continuously improving student learning.

What are the desired outcomes of this project? How will you know that you have achieved each of these outcomes?
Our primary desired outcomes: Attitudes — Improved attitudes toward academic commitment and challenge among students and faculty. This will be evidenced by changes in attitude by faculty and students about the academic focus of the campus in general. Among other measures, we will use the Student Satisfaction Inventory, the National Survey of Student Engagement, and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement to assess these changes in attitude. Documented learning — Documented improvements in the learning of the 3-5 priority ELOs by the end of the four-year project. In other words, we should be able to assess outgoing graduates, make focused improvements in the teaching of those outcomes, and then hopefully see increases in the levels of performance by a new group of outgoing students. This is not proof of better educational methods, but it is results-oriented improvement within the scope of this project. Course-level learning outcomes and assessments — All course syllabi will feature clear and comprehensive Suskie Charts that articulate course learning objectives, activities, and assessments. This will be confirmed by monthly reviews in the first year and ongoing monitoring of faculty syllabi. Data gathering, storing, and reporting — A process for gathering, storing, and reporting institution-wide data on levels of student performance on the key ELOs, eventually including longitudinal data. This will be evidenced by software and supporting processes of the Evaluation Office that gather, store, and report institution-wide results. Planning, budgeting, and reporting — A planning, budgeting, and reporting system that includes student performance on the ELOs as a central feature. This system will be in place by the end of the four-year project. This will be evidenced by minutes of relevant committees that show flowcharts of the relevant systems and decisions about academic reports and budgets based on their student learning outcomes data. Evidence-based improvement plans — Improvement plans for each academic program and the university as a whole based on evidence of student learning. This will be evident in the year-end annual reports of each of the academic programs. HLC recognition — Recognition from the HLC comprehensive visit team in 2020 that we have made substantial progress in focusing the teaching and learning at the University on student learning outcomes.

What are the desired outcomes of this project? How will you know that you have achieved each of these outcomes?

Our primary desired outcomes:

Attitudes — Improved attitudes toward academic commitment and challenge among students and faculty. This will be evidenced by changes in attitude by faculty and students about the academic focus of the campus in general. Among other measures, we will use the Student Satisfaction Inventory, the National Survey of Student Engagement, and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement to assess these changes in attitude.
Documented learning — Documented improvements in the learning of the 3-5 priority ELOs by the end of the four-year project. In other words, we should be able to assess outgoing graduates, make focused improvements in the teaching of those outcomes, and then hopefully see increases in the levels of performance by a new group of outgoing students. This is not proof of better educational methods, but it is results-oriented improvement within the scope of this project.
Course-level learning outcomes and assessments — All course syllabi will feature clear and comprehensive Suskie Charts that articulate course learning objectives, activities, and assessments. This will be confirmed by monthly reviews in the first year and ongoing monitoring of faculty syllabi.
Data gathering, storing, and reporting — A process for gathering, storing, and reporting institution-wide data on levels of student performance on the key ELOs, eventually including longitudinal data. This will be evidenced by software and supporting processes of the Evaluation Office that gather, store, and report institution-wide results.
Planning, budgeting, and reporting — A planning, budgeting, and reporting system that includes student performance on the ELOs as a central feature. This system will be in place by the end of the four-year project. This will be evidenced by minutes of relevant committees that show flowcharts of the relevant systems and decisions about academic reports and budgets based on their student learning outcomes data.
Evidence-based improvement plans — Improvement plans for each academic program and the university as a whole based on evidence of student learning. This will be evident in the year-end annual reports of each of the academic programs.
HLC recognition — Recognition from the HLC comprehensive visit team in 2020 that we have made substantial progress in focusing the teaching and learning at the University on student learning outcomes.

What serious challenges do you expect to encounter? How will you deal with them?
Challenge — Faculty may be disinclined to change their ways of teaching due to inertia. Strategies — Celebrate early adopters and share success stories. Inspire everyone to see assessment as a means to an end they already care about. Challenge — Faculty may be disinclined to change their ways of teaching due to being too busy to learn new strategies. Strategies — Keep emphasizing that we are not advocating more work but merely smarter means of assessment. Follow up with people who miss initial meetings or workshops, making clear that this is not optional or avoidable. Support faculty with easy-to-find information and tools they need to do a better job. Ensure that department chairs make student learning and assessment a regular discussion topic in department meetings. Make clear that each department chair’s foremost responsibility is continuous improvement of student learning. Build course- and program-level outcomes assessment into performance review meetings for faculty, program directors, and department chairs. Challenge — The current initiative gets lost in other campus initiatives on campus or otherwise loses momentum. Strategies — Keep everything we do under one umbrella of improving student learning, to avoid fragmenting our intention. Promote regular communication among the leaders of various campus initiatives, so that all initiatives remain integrated. Regularly report progress to the faculty as a whole, so that they see our sustained commitment to improvement. Challenge — Faculty and administrators may see the current initiative as either at odds with or separate from our mission and vision over the last thirty years. Strategies — Continue to place this assessment initiative in the context of our ongoing mission to promote holistic student development. Integrate the theoretical foundations of assessment for learning with the theoretical foundations of our Consciousness-Based approach to teaching and learning. Challenge — We may run into financial constraints that prevent us from purchasing important software or hiring important personnel to sustain the changes we envision. Strategies — We must build the conceptual model and processes for doing what we are already doing in a way more aligned with student learning outcomes. This revision of our ways of carrying out our jobs costs nothing. We must demonstrate to faculty and students that new software and more personnel focused on assessment will bring more students and greater revenues in the long run.

What serious challenges do you expect to encounter? How will you deal with them?

Challenge — Faculty may be disinclined to change their ways of teaching due to inertia.

Strategies —

Celebrate early adopters and share success stories.
Inspire everyone to see assessment as a means to an end they already care about.

Challenge — Faculty may be disinclined to change their ways of teaching due to being too busy to learn new strategies.

Strategies —

Keep emphasizing that we are not advocating more work but merely smarter means of assessment.
Follow up with people who miss initial meetings or workshops, making clear that this is not optional or avoidable.
Support faculty with easy-to-find information and tools they need to do a better job.
Ensure that department chairs make student learning and assessment a regular discussion topic in department meetings.
Make clear that each department chair’s foremost responsibility is continuous improvement of student learning.
Build course- and program-level outcomes assessment into performance review meetings for faculty, program directors, and department chairs.

Challenge — The current initiative gets lost in other campus initiatives on campus or otherwise loses momentum.

Strategies —

Keep everything we do under one umbrella of improving student learning, to avoid fragmenting our intention.
Promote regular communication among the leaders of various campus initiatives, so that all initiatives remain integrated.
Regularly report progress to the faculty as a whole, so that they see our sustained commitment to improvement.

Challenge — Faculty and administrators may see the current initiative as either at odds with or separate from our mission and vision over the last thirty years.

Strategies —

Continue to place this assessment initiative in the context of our ongoing mission to promote holistic student development.
Integrate the theoretical foundations of assessment for learning with the theoretical foundations of our Consciousness-Based approach to teaching and learning.

Challenge — We may run into financial constraints that prevent us from purchasing important software or hiring important personnel to sustain the changes we envision.

Strategies —

We must build the conceptual model and processes for doing what we are already doing in a way more aligned with student learning outcomes. This revision of our ways of carrying out our jobs costs nothing.
We must demonstrate to faculty and students that new software and more personnel focused on assessment will bring more students and greater revenues in the long run.

Describe the specific steps you will be taking in Year 1 to develop and implement the early stages of your project.
Step 1 — Create a concept map displaying all levels of assessment and their interrelationships, using the “Unified Field Chart” format that we use in every academic discipline to show (a) the overall structure of every academic discipline and the interrelationships of its branches, (b) how each discipline reflects the fundamental dynamics of the field of pure consciousness (the unified field), and (c) how students experience this field directly and awaken it within themselves through their Transcendental Meditation practice. This gives faculty and students an at-a-glance vision of the whole in a familiar framework (COMPLETED – click here to view.) Step 2 — Meet with the faculty as a whole to present the vision for this initiative, including the details of the 4-year plan and the Unified Field Chart for assessment) gain buy-in introduce to them the Suskie Chart, which they will add to each course syllabus going forward. Each chart will also reference to the specific Essential Learning Outcomes supported by that course. (COMPLETED – click hereto view the 4-year plan presented at the Roundtable and after to the University faculty, or see attachment) This will actively engage every faculty member right from the beginning at the grassroots level of assessment, namely making clear to students (and to themselves) in every course syllabus “what you will learn, how you will learn it, and how you will demonstrate you have learned it.” Step 3 — Hold monthly meetings for faculty who are planning their syllabus for upcoming courses to help them create their Suskie Charts. (SCHEDULED) Step 4 — Review mission, goals, vision, and core values documents and revise so that they cohere around student learning. This will begin in November and continue over the next several months, including the approvals of new versions by appropriate committees and trustees. Step 5 — After several months of reviewing and approving the new Suskie charts with faculty, Assessment Team members will meet with individual departments to begin mapping the ELOs to courses in the departments. The resulting maps will give us an overall picture — built from the course level up — of how well the ELOs are currently supported across the curriculum. Step 6 – Assessment Team members will work with the academic program faculty to adjust program learning outcomes according to the above review of the from the Suskie charts. Step 7 — Working with the faculty as a whole, we will revisit the list of ELOs with the aim of simplifying them and choosing 3-5 ELOs that we will focus on for the next two years. By the next report (September 2016), we plan to have a revised, simplified set of ELOs, mapped to course and program objectives, with a faculty-wide agreement as to which ones we will fully define and measure in Years 2-4.
Summary Chart of Assessment

Describe the specific steps you will be taking in Year 1 to develop and implement the early stages of your project.

Step 1 — Create a concept map displaying all levels of assessment and their interrelationships, using the “Unified Field Chart” format that we use in every academic discipline to show (a) the overall structure of every academic discipline and the interrelationships of its branches, (b) how each discipline reflects the fundamental dynamics of the field of pure consciousness (the unified field), and (c) how students experience this field directly and awaken it within themselves through their Transcendental Meditation practice. This gives faculty and students an at-a-glance vision of the whole in a familiar framework (COMPLETED – click here to view.)

Step 2 — Meet with the faculty as a whole to

present the vision for this initiative, including the details of the 4-year plan and the Unified Field Chart for assessment)
gain buy-in
introduce to them the Suskie Chart, which they will add to each course syllabus going forward. Each chart will also reference to the specific Essential Learning Outcomes supported by that course. (COMPLETED – click hereto view the 4-year plan presented at the Roundtable and after to the University faculty, or see attachment)

This will actively engage every faculty member right from the beginning at the grassroots level of assessment, namely making clear to students (and to themselves) in every course syllabus “what you will learn, how you will learn it, and how you will demonstrate you have learned it.”

Step 3 — Hold monthly meetings for faculty who are planning their syllabus for upcoming courses to help them create their Suskie Charts. (SCHEDULED)

Step 4 — Review mission, goals, vision, and core values documents and revise so that they cohere around student learning. This will begin in November and continue over the next several months, including the approvals of new versions by appropriate committees and trustees.

Step 5 — After several months of reviewing and approving the new Suskie charts with faculty, Assessment Team members will meet with individual departments to begin mapping the ELOs to courses in the departments. The resulting maps will give us an overall picture — built from the course level up — of how well the ELOs are currently supported across the curriculum.

Step 6 – Assessment Team members will work with the academic program faculty to adjust program learning outcomes according to the above review of the from the Suskie charts.

Step 7 — Working with the faculty as a whole, we will revisit the list of ELOs with the aim of simplifying them and choosing 3-5 ELOs that we will focus on for the next two years. By the next report (September 2016), we plan to have a revised, simplified set of ELOs, mapped to course and program objectives, with a faculty-wide agreement as to which ones we will fully define and measure in Years 2-4.

Summary Chart of Assessment

Response to the Report

Fall 2015 Report to the HLC Assessment Academy

REQUEST INFO