The campus has been engaged in a range of assessment activities throughout its history, as evaluations have been required by state agencies, accreditors, auditors, and others who have measured the success and efficiency of our efforts. As educators, we are familiar with the assessment of individual student performance as we grade papers, examinations, and student projects, and then report these assessments in the form of grades or scores. Our graduates are assessed on their skills for professional certification or for career placement. Because these many types of assessments have been a part of the institutional culture for a very long time, we may feel that the university knows all about assessment and has mastered it as a part of our routine.

But there is another aspect of assessment that our university does not do well, and for which we have been called to account in the near future. This assessment activity is related to broad-scale institutional performance, as distinguished from the more individualized performance measures mentioned earlier. This institutional assessment process is meant to help the university improve itself over time. In a real sense, the campus-wide process is similar to the repetitive and continuing evaluation of a student's progress -- designed to assess his or her progress toward an instructional goal, inform the student of that progress, provide assistance to reach the goal, and modify the goals as progress is made -- so that the learner continues to expand the knowledge base. So it is with institutional assessment: We set goals, evaluate our progress toward them, take corrective measures if we are missing the goals, then adjust the goals once they are achieved. Through this process it is hoped that institutional quality may be addressed and improved through a cycle of assessment activities.

This process of continuous improvement has been embraced by the Higher Learning Commission, and was a focal point of the accreditation visit at ASU last year. The issue of assessment is addressed in the Higher Learning Commission report, which is available for review on the ASU website, and is mentioned in particular detail within the context of Criterion III of the HLC standards. This section evaluates the university’s success in accomplishing its educational and other purposes. The HLC Visiting Committee found that ASU was missing the mark in our assessment efforts:

“Assessment is not being implemented to allow the institution to continue to meet its goals.

A. Tests administered are not used for assessing general education effectiveness, for instance. No clear standard exists for administrators to use in assuring implementation.

B. The Team examined assessment plans for over 100 departments but found no plan in place for the completion of the cycle of assessment. The Team received no evidence of curricular improvements linked to assessment efforts.

C. Assessment of Graduate level learning and program evaluation has been assigned to the Graduate Dean and the Graduate Committee but no implementation of this assignment has begun.

D. The Office (of) Assessment was able to make considerable headway in creating a basis for an assessment environment but the position of director is vacant.

E. The Team confirmed ASU’s Self-Study identification of needs in the area of assessment.

(A) focus visit on assessment coordination and implementation (is) recommended for 2006-2007.”

The university responded to the commission with the following statement:

“Although the assessment culture of ASU has improved significantly in recent years, we are aware of our need to further develop our assessment practices and utilize assessment outcomes to facilitate change and improvement. The office of Assessment Services will work collaboratively with faculty and staff to continue to develop a strong atmosphere of assessment that encompasses all aspects of planning, implementation, evaluation, and change at the appropriate level.”

The commission accepted this response with the assumed understanding that we will, indeed, develop such an atmosphere of assessment. We are off to a good start in this effort, through a number of initiatives.

First, as we have worked through the development of the Strategic Plan, we have tried to remember that our strategic goals and objectives must be assessable, and that we will need periodically to measure our progress toward those goals. That activity should be part of the strategic plan itself.

Second, we have developed a greater measure of institutional sensitivity toward assessment, partly due to the HLC report, but also because discipline-based accreditation teams are now expecting to see evidence of an assessment process at the program or departmental level. The need for this demonstration is obvious: How else will we know we are being effective in doing what we say we do, and how can we plan to do it better? This is accountability at a level for which we are individually responsible. For example, the teacher training program in ASU’s College of Education recently conducted a series of state assessments of the effectiveness of the students produced by the program. Students consistently scored in the high 90th percentile, which clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of student preparation by way of a recognized assessment process. This outcome gives us the great satisfaction of knowing that assessment proves what we profess to deliver: highly qualified and competent teachers to meet a critical need of the state that supports the university.

Third, we have brought Dr. Kent Johnson to direct the university’s Assessment Services office. Dr. Johnson is keenly aware of the intention of the HLC team to return to ASU in 2006-2007, and that the team is coming for a specific purpose, as delineated in the HLC final report of 2003:

“The team recommends a focused visit to evaluate whether ASU is making progress in implementing a program to assess student learning in general education, undergraduate degree areas, and graduate studies. The focus visit team should find that ASU has clear administrative lines of responsibility for the collection of assessment data and a process implemented for utilizing the data for improving student learning. Some examples of completing the circle of assessment leading to improvement should be provided by ASU to the focus visit team.”

This expectation is succinct. We have work to do.

Dr. Johnson has started the initiative toward HLC’s observations about the general education program. He has stated an ambitious goal for assessing general education at ASU to promote programmatic change that leads to the evolution of a nationally recognized general education program. This goal is consistent with our proposed strategic directive to build ASU’s image and increase our visibility regionally and nationally. To move in that direction, it is necessary to examine how the current general education courses are promoting student learning relative to general education goals. This process will help ASU determine where and how the general education goals are currently assessed, how we might correct gaps in the current curriculum, and what recommendations for programmatic change will be made to bring coherence and meaning to the general education program. A copy of the preliminary assessment plan for general education (Using Assessment to Improve Student Learning in General Education at ASU) is available on the Assessment Services Website. The plan is available for viewing at: http://assessmentservices.astate.edu/HTMPages/projects.htm.

Dr. Johnson invites your comments and suggestions for the proposed plan. Please email any comments to him at dkjohnson@astate.edu.

Some persons who worked on the 1996 general education review may feel that this is déjà vu. But that is exactly what the notion of an assessment cycle implies; that we revisit the process of assessment again and again, hopefully to improve the product and process each time around. Through that effort we hope to improve the university and what it can bring to each student. Who among us does not wish for that?

This is a worthy goal. I urge that all constituents of the university join the assessment program wholeheartedly, not only for what we will show to the HLC Visit Team in 2006, but primarily for what we may reveal for ourselves that will add measure to the long-term future of our university.

I welcome commentary about this material or any other aspect of Arkansas State University. You can reach me at president@astate.edu.


Les Wyatt, President

Referenced Material: Assessment Services Web Site: Assessment Projects

 First Friday Archive          Back to the Top