Transcript Assessment at 1900 Feet

Dr. Randall Rhodes, Assistant Dean, College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences
Robert Smith, Assistant VP for Planning, Assessment, and Institutional
Research
1. CORE SKILLS
Students will:
demonstrate foundational skills in the comprehension and interpretation of information in written and oral forms;
communicate information and ideas effectively;
understand and apply mathematical reasoning to solve quantitative problems and to evaluate quantitative information and arguments;
use technological resources as appropriate to access and communicate relevant information.
2. LIBERAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF INQUIRY, CRITICAL THINKING, AND SYNTHESIS
Students will:
demonstrate foundational abilities to apply different methods of inquiry from various perspectives and disciplines to gather information;
comprehend and use various fundamental research methods to evaluate information critically;
use problem-defining and problem-solving skills by synthesizing core concepts within and across disciplines;
demonstrate sustained intellectual curiosity through exploration of emerging issues.
3. VALUES AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Students will:
demonstrate respect and tolerance for other cultures and societies;
make personal judgments based on ethical considerations and societal values;
exhibit civic responsibility and leadership;
understand the purpose and value of community service in advancing society.
4. APPRECIATION OF CULTURAL IDENTITIES
Students will:
demonstrate the skills, and attitudes essential for communicating and cooperating effectively with people of diverse backgrounds;
demonstrate an awareness of the cultural and social exercise of power;
recognize and appreciate arguments supporting perspectives different from your own.
1. CORE SKILLS
2. LIBERAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF INQUIRY, CRITICAL THINKING, AND SYNTHESIS
3. VALUES AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
4. APPRECIATION OF CULTURAL IDENTITIES
5. ACQUISITION AND APPLICATION OF SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE
Students will:
Demonstrate technical and analytic skills that are appropriate to their fields
of study and applicable to future careers;
Acquire research skills and specialized vocabulary for critical discourse;
Demonstrate competencies and achievements appropriate to their fields of
study;
Apply classroom learning in a combination of reflective practice and
experiential education.
Information Literacy and Fluency Planning Group
Basic Skills in Technology Literacy and Fluency Planning Group
Basic Skills in Quantitative Reasoning Planning Group
Basic Skills in Critical Thinking Planning Group
Basic Skills in Scientific Reasoning/Three-Credit Science Course Planning Group
Basic Skills in Written Communication/Writing-Intensive Planning Group
Basic Skills in Oral Communication/Speaking-Intensive Planning Group
Advanced FSU Colloquium Planning Group
FIRST-YEAR FSU COLLOQUIUM COURSE REVIEW FORM
COURSE _______________________________________________________
KEY: 3 = meets fully; 2 = meets partially or moderately; 1 = not at all
The proposed course’s content crosses at least two of the Modes of Inquiry content areas within FSU’s general education
program.
Comments:
The proposal clearly describes how the interdisciplinary process will be addressed.
Comments:
The proposal clearly identifies its connection to Undergraduate Institutional Learning Goals and the Goals of the General
Education Program.
Comments:
The proposal clearly identifies specific course activities that support the identified learning goals.
Comments:
The assessment mechanisms as defined are appropriate.
Comments:






Syllabus
Narrative outlining linkages of course goals/objectives to
those of the GEP and institution
Examples of course activities designed to ensure the above
linkages
Examples of student products
Samples of instructor feedback to students
Executed samples of assessment (rubrics)
GENERAL EDUCATION: MODES OF INQUIRY COURSE REVIEW FORM
COURSE _______________________________________________________
KEY: 3 = Above Standards; 2 = Meets Standards; 1 = Below Standards
1. The course’s curriculum reflects the fundamental belief of Frostburg State University’s Program of General Education in the concept of a
liberal education: that students learn more completely and more deeply when components of general education and the majors are
interwoven to offer multiple opportunities to develop connections between disciplines, theories, and ideas. (provide syllabus)
Comments:
2. The course’s curriculum allows students to acquire a level of proficiency in at least three of the seven basic skills of general education,
e.g. (1) critical thinking, 2) information literacy, 3) oral communication, 4) quantitative reasoning, 5) scientific reasoning, 6) technology
literacy, and 7) written communication. (provide narrative)
Comments:
3. Instruction and course activities allow students to acquire a level of proficiency in at least three of the seven basic skills of general
education, e.g. (1) critical thinking, 2) information literacy, 3) oral communication, 4) quantitative reasoning, 5) scientific reasoning, 6)
technology literacy, and 7) written communication. (provide narrative and/or documentation)
Comments:
4. The assessment mechanisms as employed in the course are appropriate. The faculty member is engaged in identifying, administering,
and evaluating assessment instruments and results. (provide copies of student products and instructor feedback, e.g. papers, tests,
projects, etc.)
Comments:
Critical Thinking (Modes of Inquiry: Category E)
As per guidelines established by the faculty work group, Critical Thinking is defined as reflective, self-directed thinking that requires skills in
reasoning and the dispositions to use those skills so that a person can think effectively about questions, problems, and decisions both
inside and outside of the classroom. A student who has developed basic skills in Critical Thinking will be able to
◦ Analyze questions and problems from multiple perspectives and points of view;
◦ Evaluate relevant evidence to draw sound conclusions from information provided to them in their major field of study, general
education courses, and everyday lives;
◦ Properly construct arguments from information provided to them.
A student who has developed critical thinking dispositions will show the inclination to
◦ Approach questions with an open-minded and curious attitude, be informed by multiple relevant perspectives, and be willing to
examine questions in a fair-minded way;
◦ Apply critical thinking skills to thinking about issues in a major field of study, general education courses, and everyday lives;
◦ Reflect on how best to answer questions, solve problems, and make decisions in academic and everyday settings.
Since the 2005 undergraduate catalog, all students are required to take IDIS 150: First-Year FSU Colloquium. The curricular focus is on the
faculty modeling interdisciplinary thought as a particular theme or issue is introduced and discussed from multiple disciplinary
perspectives. The course has as its primary goal the modeling by faculty of diverse approaches and the integration of those approaches
in the consideration of an inherently interdisciplinary course topic.
In the early stages of students’ college careers, modeling the ambiguities and the search for resolutions in interdisciplinary thought is
particularly valuable as a precursor to the types of connections they will be expected to make in their major academic studies. It is
suggested that students complete the course prior to earning 45 credit hours. IDIS 150 examines a selected theme or subject from
multiple perspectives within two or more of the five academic areas as identified by the Code of Maryland: (1) Arts and Humanities, (2)
Social and Behavioral Sciences, (3) Biological and Physical Sciences, (4) Mathematics, and (5) English Composition. FSU has further
defined a multi-disciplinary approach in a First-Year FSU Colloquium to mean that all sections of IDIS 150 will explore a course topic
from the perspective of at least two of the Modes of Inquiry content areas of the GEP.
FIRST-YEAR FSU COLLOQUIUM
CRITICAL THINKING
COURSE REVIEW FORM
COURSE _______________________________________________________
KEY: 3 = Above Standards; 2 = Meets Standards; 1 = Below Standards
1
.
2
.
3
.
4
.
5
.
The course’s curriculum crosses at least two of the Modes of Inquiry content
areas within FSU’s general education program. (provide syllabus)
Comments:
The faculty member models interdisciplinary thought in the introduction and
discussion of the theme/issue from multiple disciplinary perspectives. (provide
documentation)
Comments:
The course clearly identifies its connection to at least 3 Goals of the General
Education Program. (please identify the goals and explain the connection)
Comments:
The course activities support the above identified GEP learning goals. (please
describe)
Comments:
The assessment mechanisms as employed in the course are appropriate. The
faculty member is engaged in identifying, administering, and evaluating
assessment instruments and results. (provide copies of student products and
instructor feedback, e.g. papers, tests, projects, etc.)
Comments:
The instructor taught two sections of this course topic during spring 2011 with a total enrollment of 45 students. The sponsoring department’s reviewer
scored the course as “Above Standards” for the first three dimensions, as “Meets Standards” for the fourth, and as “Below Standards” for the fifth.
The reviewer commented on 1) the interdisciplinary course content mirroring that in the disciplines of HIST, PHIL, and POSC, such as the theory explaining
historical events and developments, and the readings confronting the moral and philosophical issues regarding war, and 2) the GEP Learning Goals
are noted in the pedagogical model of cross-disciplinary, synthesis and analysis in the assigned readings that require students to critically think about
different viewpoints and perspectives of just war, as well as make judgments based on societal values, as well as recognizing and appreciating
arguments supporting perspectives different from their own. In respect to course activities, the reviewer noted that the expected outcome for
reading and writing assignments, as well as discussion, is for students to comprehend the causes of war by using specific examples, how
philosophical debates apply or not, and international contexts. The use of technology to access and communicate relevant information is partially
supported by students answering discussion questions on Blackboard, though there is no evidence that they communicate with one another or
engage in dialogue, which is required according to the syllabus. In preparation for the Research Project, students do meet in groups to discuss their
research of the assigned topic and later peer evaluate. The writing assignments get students to critically evaluate sources and diverse arguments
across disciplines. While the discussion questions in the syllabus seem to get students to think critically, in respect to assessment mechanisms, the
criteria for peer evaluation is not provided, nor were samples provided of the students’ outline for the conflict narrative, and the grading of class
participation is unclear. Feedback to students is limited and flaws in syntax are ignored. No quizzes or examinations were given.
The course portfolio included the following: (1) Syllabus: (a lengthy course description outlines a pedagogy that focuses on critical thinking, synthesis,
information literacy, research, and the presentation of multiple perspectives. Course work consists of written assignments based on readings, group
discussions, participation in discussion forums on Blackboard, short papers, and a research project. A tentative schedule matches lecture topics and
required readings with critical discussion topics), (2) Week 1 Online Discussion: (a screen capture of the thread of discussion requiring students to
critically assess a definition presented in the reading), (3) Topics for Final Papers: (selection of 5 wars with appropriate resources.), (4) On-line
readings, (5) Student course free responses, and (6) Students’ short and final papers: Instructor feedback and score at end.
Evaluation: The course stresses Critical Thinking, Research and Synthesis. The discussion questions promote fluency in these GEP/Core skills including
written communication. If these skills are core to the course, then appropriate levels of fluency in these skills need to be defined. The syllabus needs
to clearly state course objectives and expected student learning outcomes. The presented documents did not specifically outline expectations for
assessment. Instructor feedback on papers, again, addressed the issue of critical thinking however, the method for the assignment of grades was not
explained. No rubrics were included. Student free responses note the fact that the course raised challenging questions with discussions being
enlightening and enjoyable. The pedagogy was described by students as conducive to the presentation of varied student perspectives. Meets
Standards.
Core Skill/
Course
Category
Information
Literacy
Written
Communicatio
n
Quantitative
Reasoning
GEP: A, B, D
GEP C:
Scientific
Reasoning
GEP E: Critical
Thinking (100level)
GEP E: Critical
Thinking (300level)
GEP F: Identity
& Difference
Technology
Fluency
Oral
Communicatio
n
Totals
# of courses
2
# of students
registered in
assessed
course
sections
55
Below
Standard
Meet Standard
Above
Standard
1
1
1
2
51
1
2
167
2
8*
3
232
124
4
1
4
2
6
224
1
4
1
18
5+
141
6
335
2
39
37
1357
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
14
21
From a review of the submitted materials, issues periodically emerged that require additional
attention.
Departments self-selected courses to be included in Phase I. This process raised questions. While 47%
of GEP/Core Skills courses are taught by adjuncts (PTNTT and FTNTT combined), only 8% of courses
offered for assessment during Phase I were taught by adjuncts. Are departmental expectations for
student learning outcomes variable depending on the rank of the instructor? (Ironically, the two
courses taught by PTNTTs were scored as “Meets Standards” and “Above Standards”; the course
taught by the FTNTT was scored as “Above Standards.”) FSU must ensure that course sections
taught by PTNTTs and FTNTTs offer the same quality instruction.
Faculty seemed to be unaware of BOR, MHEC, and institutional expectations in respect to Learning
Goals. Faculty also need to be informed of the institutional mission in respect to the Core Skills.
Courses most recently approved by UUCR fared the best, especially those that were taught for the first
time. Courses taught by new faculty received higher scores, as perhaps, new faculty rethought
course assumptions. Courses with lower scores were approved a long time ago and may currently
be taught by faculty other than those who proposed them to UUCR . Therefore, stated intentions
do not always equate with documented realities.
Phase II will be conducted during the 2010-2011 academic year.
 Between 30 and 40 courses will be assessed.
 Courses that were evaluated as “Below Standards” during Phase I will be reassessed.
 Courses will be selected by the Assistant Dean in order to vary the distribution across categories of
the GEP and Core Skills. No courses from Phase I will be repeated.
 There will be a more equitable inclusion of courses taught by PTNTTs and FTNTTs.
 Departments that have exhausted their GEP offerings in Phase I, or do not offer GEP courses, will
assess courses within the major programs that focus on discipline-specific skill enhancement.
There is need for further communication, and potentially, a workshop on institutional expectations.
While the topic is of interest for tenured and tenure-track faculty, focus should be placed on
informing adjuncts and new and first year returning faculty as these instructors are often charged
with the delivery of the GEP.
Send UUCR proposals back to departments to refresh memories. Courses need to be reconciled with
institutional expectations to interrelate course goals and expectations with GEP Learning Goals and
Core Skills. This shall lead to internal departmental reviews of syllabi, learning goals, and student
outcomes for GEP courses. Course proposals for GEP inclusion that predate UUCR’s institution may
be more difficult to locate and distribute, therefore it is necessary to encourage departments to
revisit these courses and use this internal review to improve and update teaching and learning.
Level of Departmental Participation
Fewer course portfolios were submitted for review during Phase II. The target was 30 to 40. Only 26
were submitted. Departments cited 1) the desire not to burden PTNTT and FTNTT faculty with such
a task, and 2) the review of their GEP offerings during Phase I. Some departments ignored the call
for participation even though they had GEP offerings that had not yet been assessed and were
taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty. (Ironically, the three submitted courses that were
taught by PTNTTs all were rated as “Above Standards”. The course taught by a FTNTT was rated as
“Meets Standards”.) In respect to the latter point, as evidenced in this report, students attain levels
of fluency and proficiency in courses throughout their academic careers; therefore, departments
were encouraged to submit portfolios of upper-level disciplinary courses.
Recommendations
 During Phase III, 30 to 40 courses will be assessed. The Assistant Dean of CLAS will work with deans
of the colleges to enlist more participation. Strategies will also be devised to directly recruit faculty
who may be interested.
 Courses that were evaluated as “Below Standards” during Phase II will be reassessed.
 No courses from Phase I or Phase II will be repeated.
 Departments that have exhausted their GEP offerings, or do not offer GEP courses, will assess
courses within the major programs that focus on core skill enhancement through disciplinary
instruction.
Campus Awareness of Learning Goals and Assessment Mechanisms
 During Phase II, faculty seemed to be more aware of BOR, MHEC, and institutional
expectations in respect to Learning Goals and the need to develop students’ Core Skills.
More of the submitted syllabi included direct reference to institutional and GEP Learning
Goals. This may have been due to the wide distribution of the Report from Phase I and/or
the increase in campus-wide discussions of assessment on the college and institutional
levels. So, while there is need for further discussion, especially on the level of the academic
department and focused on adjuncts and new and first year returning faculty, the campus
community is becoming acclimated to an institutional model that is focused on assessment.
Recommendations
 The Assistant Dean will conduct a TASTE workshop targeted to incoming and returning faculty
on the topic of institutional learning goals, Core Skills, assessment, and compiling the course
portfolio.
A capstone experience is defined as a course, project, or presentation with variable
credits that can be used as the locus for assessment of students’ learning in
his/her selected major. The learning goals of a capstone experience should reflect
the learning goals for the major. However, some general expectations should be
considered “universal,” as reflected in the following basic tenets.
Upon the successful completion of a capstone course, a student should be able to
 Demonstrate appropriate types of learning in the major through a specific set of
requirements (e.g., thesis, oral presentation, portfolio, performance, or
internship);
 Demonstrate, where appropriate, the inherent interdisciplinarity found in the
major through connections made to the learning objectives of the program of
general education;
 Demonstrate the attainment of discipline-specific levels of technology and
information fluency;
 Demonstrate an understanding of principles and practices appropriate to entering
a profession related to the discipline.
Program Goals. Program goals should be clearly stated. There should be some correlation with institutional learning goals. Goals should be
stated in the form of action objectives.
Assessment Tool(s). What methods are used? Examples of assessment tools include: scoring guides or rubrics, homegrown assignments,
published instruments, homegrown objective tests, evaluation of student portfolios, conducting surveys, focus groups, and interviews,
and evaluation of student self-reflection. The sample size must be stated.
Data Collection. How is data collected, and how can it be accessed? Summaries for data already collected should be documented and
included in periodic assessment reports.
Who Performs Assessment? Assessment can be performed by the faculty member teaching the course, a group of faculty members, an
assigned individual, or everyone in the department.
Timeframe for Assessment. How often does assessment occur? Does it occur sporadically, or is it consistent? Is it annual, semi-annual, or
bi-annual? If so, does it occur at a specified time of the year (i.e. at the end of the semester)?
Courses Being Assessed. What is being assessed and when? Departments should develop a schedule of assessment for courses in their
program(s).
Benchmarks. What is considered acceptable? In the case of rubrics, achieving “meets standards” in all categories could be a satisfactory
benchmark. In the case of using a published instrument, a score at or above the national average can be considered a benchmark.
Closing the Loop. The department should indicate how it will use assessment data. Is data reviewed consistently? Are recommendations
being made to improve the program or facilitate student learning?
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
Program/Department
Period of Report
Date Created
Program Vision Statement or Mission
Statement (not required)
Statement of Learning Goals
(List program or departmental learning
goals here, then copy and paste below as
necessary)
Goal #1:
Which Undergraduate Institutional
Learning Goal does this goal support?
What is the observable learning objective?
What is the method of assessment?
Who is being assessed?
(e.g., sample size, certain classes, etc.)
What is the schedule of assessment?
Goal #2:
Which Undergraduate Institutional
Learning Goal does this goal support?
What is the observable learning objective?
What is the method of assessment?
Who is being assessed?
(e.g., sample size, certain classes, etc.)
What is the schedule of assessment?
Goal #3:
Which Undergraduate Institutional
Learning Goal does this goal support?
What is the observable learning objective?
What is the method of assessment?
Who is being assessed?
(e.g., sample size, certain classes, etc.)
What is the schedule of assessment?
Goal #4:
Which Undergraduate Institutional
Learning Goal does this goal support?
What is the observable learning objective?
What is the method of assessment?
Who is being assessed?
(e.g., sample size, certain classes, etc.)
What is the schedule of assessment?
Who will review and interpret the results?
Who will keep the assessment records?
Who will make decisions on courses, the
program, etc. as a result of assessment?
CLAS Assessment Council Template for Assessment Updates
Academic Year: ______ /_______
Courses Assessed (List courses)
Summary of findings (for each course assessed, summarize the
assessment findings based on data collected. You may also
attach any relevant tables, charts, or similar documents)
Course 1:
Course 2:
Decisions made, including program or course changes, that
come as a result of previous assessment findings (list or provide
a short narrative)
Changes made to assessment plan itself (list or provide short
narrative)
Measuring Vertical, Horizontal,
and Longitudinal
Objectives
1.Discuss Frostburg State University’s
different approaches.
2.Present Frostburg State University's
institutional assessment practices.
3.Examine how Frostburg’s campus
community uses the results.
Impacted by
Analytics
Evidence Based
Practices (EBP)

Strategic Planning
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦


Situational Analysis
Articulated Mission
Articulated Vision
Articulated Core Values
Articulated Goals
Articulated Objectives
Student Learning Assessment Plan
Outcome Reporting
Vision
Frostburg State University
Environment

Federal

State

Accreditation

Campus

Governance
Campus Leadership

Decision Making

Resources

Change Mechanism
Inputs

Human Assets

Budget

Infrastructure

Constituents
Process

Work Flow

Program Review
Systems

Information systems

Campus Structure

Culture

Attitudes
Do




Act on Results
Revise Programs
Resources
Development
Communication
Report

NSSE

CLA

ASQ

Climate Survey

Program Review

Manage for Results
Process Flow Details
This diagram illustrates the assessment model. It displays the
operational level of the process that occurs at both the institutional
and unit level. The institutional strategic plan articulates broad
institutional strategic priorities grounded within the boundaries of
mission, while unit level operational plans articulate unit specific goals
and strategies related to these priorities. At both the institutional and
unit level, the articulation of measurable outcomes assists the
university in assessing progress and making improvements.
It is recognized that this is not a block step vertical process and should
be used as a fluid multi-dimensional model. The Process Flow is
designed to guide and provide a structure for evaluation of
effectiveness and use of the results. The institution and units will be
encouraged to regularly review its assessment process and make
needed modification at the conclusion of the assessment cycle.
25
Strategy for
Accomplishing Goal
Selected
Strategies
Selected
Assessments
Measuring and
Evaluating
Effectiveness
Action for Achieving
Desired Outcome
Selected Actions
Operational Activities
Constituencies’
Analyses of Data
Findings
Communication
with Key
stakeholders and
Decision Makers
Recommendations &
Commendations
Action Plan/ Followup Evaluation
Feedback Loop
Continuous Improvements
=
Evaluate + Reflect + Revise
+ Communicate
26



Conducts ongoing planning and resource
allocation based on your mission and goals,
develops objectives, and utilizes the results of
assessment Evidence Based Practices.
Implementation measurements of the strategic
plan and resource allocation.
Support the development and change necessary
to improve and to maintain system .

ACTION (PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES)
◦ PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED.
◦ PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE DEFINED AND EXPLAINED MAKING USE OF AVAIL ABLE CASE EVIDENCE.
◦ AN EFFORT IS MADE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN (AMONG) PROBLEMS AND SYMPTOMS.

IDENTIFY AND RANK ALTERNATIVES
◦ IDENTIFY AND RANK ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERING RESOURCES, CAUSALITY, AND DESIRABILITY OF OUTCOMES.
◦ ALTERNATIVE WAYS/MEANS OF ADDRESSING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE IDENTIFIED.
◦ THESE WAYS/MEANS ARE EXPLAINED TO SHOW HOW THEY RESPOND TO THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES.
◦ EACH OF THE FEATURES OF EACH OF THE ALTERNATIVES IS EXPLAINED.
◦ ALTERNATIVES ARE REASONABLE (COST, TIME, INFLUENCE).
◦ NEGATIVE FEATURES, SIDE--EFFECTS, ETC., OF ALTERNATIVES; ARE IDENTIFIED AND EXPLORED.

SELECT AND ALTERNATIVE, ACT UPON IT (CRITERIA)
◦ DECISION CRITERIA ARE IDENTIFIED.
◦ THE CRITERIA ARE CLEARLY RELATED TO THE ALTERNATIVES; IDENTIFIED.
◦ THE CRITERIA FOR MAKING JUDGEMENTS ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES (COST, TIME TO PUT IN "LATE, ETC.) AS
IS PRACTICAL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
◦ THE CRITERIA ARE APPLIED TO THE ALTERNATIVES IN A REALITIC MANNER.
◦ APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA YIELDS A "BEST" OR MOST.
◦ APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION.

VALIDATE AND DEFEND ACTION (IMPLEMENTATION AND FEEDBACK)
◦ THE DETAILS OF THE COURSE OF ACTION ARE PRESENTED.
◦ THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE COURSE OF ACTION IS EXPLAINED.
◦ EXPECTED OUTCOMES ARE IDENTIFIED, AS WELL AS AN EXPLANATION OF HOW PERFORMANCE IS TO BE MEASURED.



Information must reduce uncertainty.
Information must add value to your academy.
The more important the situation, the more power of
the information.





Identify and Measure Concepts.
Collect and Store Data.
Restructure and Analyze Facts.
Deliver and Report Information.
Use and Influence Knowledge.

What does the Academy really need to know?
◦ Identify the facts, both qualitative and quantitative.

What are the essential components of this information?
◦ Measures of key performance indicators are effective, efficiency,
timely, and reliable.



Corresponding data must be collect and stored.
Systematically capture external data.
Data must be consistent.



Reduce the amount data to a comprehensive level for
decision makers.
What is the intended use.
Integrates multiple threads of information.



Interpreting the information in context
Report must focus on the needs of the user.
Information must inform decisions makers on current
and future situations.



The assessment of institutional priorities and goals is conducted
through the work of the PACIE and the University’s
implementation of the Performance Accountability
Report/Managing for Results (PAR/MFR) report.
The council will assist in the future development of the University's
strategic plan and will monitor its implementation and progress
based on Middle States standards and measures of effectiveness.
The University’s PAR/MFR goals reflect the FSU strategic plan and
the progress toward their attainment is monitored by the
University and reported annually to the Maryland Higher
Education Commission, the University System of Maryland, and
the Maryland Department of Budget and Management.
The assessment of academic programming involves the evaluation of both
campus-wide curricular offerings as well as the University’s undergraduate
academic programs.
Frostburg State University’s undergraduate academic programs are assessed
through the Periodic Program Review process, which is required by the University
System of Maryland, and obligates programs to evaluate the learning outcomes
of their students and the relationship between their programs and the
University’s mission.
External program accreditation for a number of FSU’s programs also involves an
extensive review of curriculum, faculty, budget, facilities, library, and student
learning outcomes.




The assessment of student learning outcomes takes place within
each of the University’s colleges.
The Professional Education Unit of the College of Education has a
comprehensive assessment system in place to document
candidates’ successful completion of program outcomes. The Unit’s
Conceptual Framework provides goals for all of its programs and is
consistently used by faculty as a guide for redesigning programs,
syllabi, assessments, and early field and intern evaluation forms.
The College of Business maintains a comprehensive assessment
program that links the mission of the college to the University’s
mission. Its Assurance of Learning Committee evaluates student
achievement relative to learning goals using both direct and
indirect methods.
In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS), each academic
program has developed learning goals and has begun to implement
its student learning assessment plan.

Has the discussion of what distinguishes a “strategic initiative” from an
“operational necessity” occurred?

Is there a regular and systematic process that attempts to provide
reasonable resources to facilitate achieving intended outcomes?


Are these processes transparent and participatory?
Are the number of “strategic initiatives” to be achieved each year
reasonable given available financial and human resources?

Have the initiatives been prioritized?

Has the potential impact of multiple-year initiatives been taken into
consideration?

Articulate a “progress of improvements” that can be
tied back to the “influence” of the assessment process?
 Do the outcomes achieved move the Academy closer to
achieving its mission and goals?

Accomplishments
◦ Innovations
 Clear articulated resource allocation process
 Regular reporting progress

Suggestion
◦ Meeting standard but ….
 Provide additional opportunities for input
 Publish progress/results
 Adjust the budget calendar






Bernhardt, V. L. (2004). Data analysis for continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education. [available at http://www.eyeoneducation.com]
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148. [available at
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm]
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional
learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. [available at
http://www.nesonline.com]
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [particularly pages 1-55; available
at http://shop.ascd.org]
Supovitz, J. A., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How
innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement.
Philadelphia, PA. [available at http://www.cpre.org/Publications/AC-08.pdf]
McLeod,Scott, (2005), Data Driven Teachers, University of Minnesota, Co-Director of the
University of Minnesota School Technology Leadership Initiative (STLI),
[http://www.schooltechleadership.org]