Assessment Activities | St. Ambrose University

1995 Assessment Plan

An academic assessment plan was submitted to the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Institutions of Higher Education spring 1995. St. Ambrose received approval of this plan July 1995. A complete copy of this plan is not currently available electronically, but sections of the plan are plan are presented below (some sections may have a slightly different format and/or be missing tabular information due to the vagaries of scanning technology).

In order to keep the assessment plan up-to-date, many of the current departmental assessment plans that have received approval from the St. Ambrose University Educational Policies Committee can be found at the Departmental Assessments link.

Please contact Paul Koch at KochPaulC@sau.edu for additional information.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT PLAN
INSTITUTIONAL MISSION ANALYSIS
FACULTY MATERIALS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Commission's Five Evaluative Criteria

1. To what extent has the institution demonstrated that the plan is linked to the mission, goals, and objectives of the institution for student learning and academic achievement including learning in general education and in the major?
St. Ambrose began its assessment planning with a year-long campus-wide study of our mission and the goals it calls us to accomplish (Appendix A). Following this, faculty proceeded to develop departmental assessment plans. Each department began the process with discussions exploring the unique relationship between the St. Ambrose mission and the departmental mission, and each departmental plan begins with the mission statement it developed (individual departmental assessment plans). The General Education Assessment Task Force, a two year faculty committee, spent the first year of its work engaging the faculty in studying the General Education Program mission and goals, and reflecting on how they articulated with the overall St. Ambrose mission. The results of this effort may be seen in Appendix D.

2. What is the institution's evidence that faculty have participated in the development of the institution's plan and that the plan is institution-wide in conceptualization and scope?
Several faculty committees have guided the assessment planning process at St. Ambrose. The Provost's Task Force on Assessment and Mission Values initiated assessment activities, and developed a plan, reviewed and approved by faculty, to involve the faculty and faculty committees in the assessment process. The Mission Values Committee engaged the campus community in reflection on mission goals. Faculty Development Committee made arrangements for outside assessment experts to speak at faculty assemblies, and for our own faculty with expertise to
present workshops. Each department held meetings in which all faculty members in the department worked to develop a departmental mission statement, and select appropriate assessment methods to document student academic achievement in their area. The General Education Assessment Task Force developed the General Education Assessment Plan, seeking faculty input through a series of forums. The Strategic Plan Action Team prepared the plan which led to development of the Office for Institutional Research. The Educational Policies Committee represented the faculty through its decisions to add more rigorous assessment requirements to the Departmental Program Review process, and by examining and approving the specific departmental plans which were presented by each department in 1993-94.

3. How does the plan demonstrate the likelihood that the assessment program will lead to institutional improvement when it is implemented?
This plan will lead to improvement because it embeds assessment activities in the traditional institutional structures through which faculty have customarily worked to effect educational program changes. The distinction now is that educational program improvements will be informed by systematically collected and analyzed evidence documenting student learning. In addition, the plan will lead to improvement because it provides for accountability, accountability through the traditional roles and responsibilities guiding department chairs and the Educational Policies Committee, and accountability through administrative job descriptions and reporting responsibilities regarding this activity (Section III). Finally, the plan will lead to improvement because we have invested University resources of time and money in establishing new positions and activities to move the program along, and we have instituted pathways for securing future funding for improvements as the need is demonstrated.

4. Is the timeline for the assessment program appropriate? Realistic?
The timeline for the assessment program is appropriate and realistic because it is tied to the customary St. Ambrose institutional calendar and schedules for Departmental Program Review, the Educational Policies Committee, and the University-wide Planning Committee. Second, it meets this criteria because the assessment program consists of ongoing and continuous activities which
have been folded into the traditional University mechanisms for program change, rather than being a one-shot, time-limited program. Finally, our success in meeting timelines for previous assessment activities (Appendix B) gives us confidence that the schedules described in the program (Section III) can be implemented.

5. What is the evidence that the plan provides for the appropriate administration of the assessment program?
The plan is to be implemented by faculty with administrative support. Departmental chairs, Deans, and the Educational Policies Committee fulfill their responsibilities as described in the Faculty Handbook, and assessment activities have been designed by the faculty to be administered through this traditional structure. The Vice President for Institutional Research provides support and consultation to the faculty in the collection and analysis of evidence of student learning. The Director of General Education, who is a faculty member with one-quarter time release for this position, schedules and organizes the activities of the General Education Committee. The Vice President for Institutional Research, and the Director of General Education report to the Provost. The Provost, who is an ex-officio member of the Educational Policies Committee, provides overall
administrative leadership for the plan.

THE ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT PLAN

A. Background
St. Ambrose has been engaged in the "assessment for improvement" process for many years. Indeed, as an institution where teaching and learning have always been central, a culture of assessment has long been encouraged, and this way of thinking has become embedded among our faculty. For example, since at least the mid 1980s: (1) all new students have been assessed prior to registration in English math, and reading skills, and those found deficient required to take developmental courses before enrolling in college level courses in those areas; (2) credit for adult learning has been granted by the faculty through portfolio assessment; (3) each semester the Faculty Development Committee has sponsored a variety of faculty workshops on instructional improvement, among them presentations on classroom assessment techniques; (4) the Educational Policies Committee has conducted regular departmental program reviews, a process in which, every five years, departments study their program's effectiveness, and present that assessment, along with program changes to the Committee for review and approval; (5) strategic planning (and budgeting) for the University's future has been accomplished by a University-wide Planning Committee whose members represent all campus constituencies, and who begin the annual planning process with an evidence-based internal and external environmental assessment.

The late 1980s found several of our faculty and administrators re-examining the University's strategies for educational improvement, and concluding that they could benefit from more focused and systematic study regarding what our students are actually learning. This attention was the result of faculty members attending professional conferences and becoming convinced of the value of innovative assessment techniques for classroom learning improvement, and because of new assessment requirements being communicated to administrators by accrediting organizations and governmental agencies.

Developing the Plan (1991-1995)
The section which follows describes how the St. Ambrose faculty developed the University's academic assessment plan over a four year period.

During 1991, informal discussions among faculty who had become interested in new methods of classroom assessment of student learning, and administrators who wanted to encourage that interest and explore how it might relate to the assessment initiatives of the North Central Association, led to the conclusion that an important initial step in developing a new campus-wide way of thinking about assessment was to ask the entire University community to reflect on our mutual understandings regarding the St. Ambrose mission and the goals it called us to accomplish. In the summer of 1991 a task force appointed by the Provost developed a plan to engage the campus community in discussion of the St. Ambrose mission values. One result of that effort, the St. Ambrose Mission Analysis Report, is presented in Appendix A.

Faculty conversation stimulated by the mission analysis suggested some directions for assessment planning at St. Ambrose. First, many faculty felt the need for knowledge of new techniques for assessing student academic achievement. Some felt resentment regarding outside mandates. Most indicated a willingness to learn about assessment, especially through the familiar St. Ambrose formats for faculty learning-the semester opening faculty assemblies, and the faculty development workshops which are offered throughout each semester. Second, it became clear that faculty were particularly friendly to the notion of approaching assessment initiatives within their own departments. Trying out new assessment strategies in the familiar intellectual territory of their own disciplines was attractive to faculty, as many reasoned that they could more validly distinguish student learning achievement there. They could also see the direct immediate benefits this evidence could provide to departmental program improvement. Finally, faculty and administration concurred their determination that the faculty (rather than some administrative office) must maintain its collective responsibility for institutional quality, that this was the strength of our University. Embedding critical assessment-related decisions in the existing faculty committee structure (Faculty Development Committee to plan assembly and workshop speakers, Educational Policies Committee to make
academic program decisions), and developing an Office for Institutional Research (an office which would provide a centralized location for the collection and dissemination of student achievement research to assist the faculty in their decision making) emerged as the answer to accomplishing this.

Faculty and administrators involved in the Missions Values Project gathered these experiences and ideas, and forged them into a written proposal, a "plan to get to the assessment plan." This working plan proposal (Appendix B) was presented to the faculty for discussion and review, and was approved by them in October 1992. It became the road map which led to the plan presented in section III.B. The assessment philosophy and goals which were developed to guide the activities described below are presented in the section following the next paragraph.

The St. Ambrose approach to building an assessment plan began with discipline-based activities, with Departmental Program Assessment. The 1992-94 working plan provided opportunities for quality faculty education presented by
nationally known assessment experts, and for regular workshops delivered by our own faculty with specialized knowledge (such as portfolio assessment). It included release time for one faculty member to develop expertise and act as consultant to other faculty as they developed their departmental plans. Regular forums where the faculty as a group could respond to and guide the overall assessment plan as it developed were held. Grants were made available ($200 each year to each department) to provide for the purchase of discipline-related assessment materials, and for exploration of departmental assessment techniques. Once faculty developed a common language of assessment through departmental meetings and workshop discussions, a task force was formed, and General Education assessment strategies were planned. Funds for these activities were obtained from existing budgets: money for faculty workshops was already part of baseline; the faculty grants came from a testing budget which had a surplus due to suspension of the ACT COMP exam (a committee had previously studied our use of the exam, and had made this recommendation).

Philosophy and Goals Guiding Assessment Planning

Philosophy The purpose of doing assessment at St. Ambrose University is to systematically gain information regarding how well our students are learning what we intend them to learn, and to use this knowledge to improve their educational
experience. This philosophy flows from the mission goals of stressing excellence in teaching and learning.

Goal One. Encourage and offer a variety of activities which promote a campus climate, culture of assessment, in which the notion of assessing for teaching/learning improvement becomes a routine part of faculty thinking about instruction and
curriculum.

Goal Two. Engage the faculty in developing and implementing a conceptually unified and mission-based academic assessment plan aimed at educational Improvement.

Goal Three. Develop an institution-wide understanding of the educational experience St. Ambrose intends for our students and encourage a climate of assessment among all components (support services) of the University.

Goal Four. Keep assessment activities cost-effective. Wherever possible work to find ways of rethinking and adapting teaching/learning activities and financial resources rather than "adding on."

B. The Plan for Assessing Student Academic Achievement

Overview
The student academic assessment program at St. Ambrose has several key components. First, it is departmentally based-the most intense scrutiny of student learning is conducted by faculty within their own discipline, and the results of this examination are documented through the Departmental Program Review process. This includes our graduate programs. We believe our students benefit from this strategy, as the individualized and continuous feedback on their learning progress from major faculty provides students greater opportunities to improve early in their career. This approach is based on and seeks to fulfill our mission values of excellence in teaching and learning, values which have long been interpreted here as calling us to maintain a student academic experience rooted in the individual, "face-to-face," scholarly relationship between teacher and student.

Second, General Education Program learning is assessed by a broad-based plan that uses diverse methods to document student learning of the unique understanding of skills, content, and values which is developed across courses in these areas, and which constitutes the distinguishing characteristic of a St. Ambrose |educational experience. The diverse nature of our student body (full-time and part-time, residential and commuter, four year students and transfers, traditional age and adult) adds a special complexity to valid assessment of the outcomes of this common learning experience, and the techniques described here were selected by the General Education Assessment Task Force with this issue in mind.

Third, the plan provides structured pathways for faculty to review programs regularly and to implement changes to improve student learning, changes which are based on study of assessment evidence the plan directs us to gather. These pathways are easily communicated to the St. Ambrose community as they fold into the ordinary structures through which the faculty routinely conducts
|its work-departmental meetings, faculty committees, and the annual University-wide planning process. The plan also clearly designates responsibility for moving these improvements along-the department chair and the Educational Policies Committee for departmental improvement, the General Education Director and the Educational Policies Committee for General Education Program improvement. In addition, the Vice-President for Institutional Research provides support to Departmental and General Education assessment studies through the collection, analysis, and campus-wide dissemination of research on student learning; by acting
as a consultant/resource to the faculty as they explore, experiment, and revise their assessment methods; and by providing feedback on the progress of the plan to the faculty, and to the Provost, who has overall responsibility for academic programs.

Fourth, both the Departmental and General Education plans document student learning using multiple types of measures.
St. Ambrose is gathering evidence of student academic achievement using a combination of qualitative and quantitative, longitudinal and cross-sectional, direct and indirect methods.

Fifth, the plan is cost-effective. To date, many assessment initiatives have been funded by re-allocating funds from earlier projects which had been studied and discontinued because they were judged as not meeting our needs-we seek to begin any search for new funding by taking a hard look at the usefulness of the things we are already doing. When budget additions for educational improvement are requested, the final decision is made by the University-wide Planning Committee which considers our mission and assesses the competing educational needs of St. Ambrose before awarding new funds.

Finally, the plan provides a built-in mechanism for change, both in the
assessment methods used and in the plan itself. This encourages an atmosphere in which faculty are not afraid to experiment and try things, as we acknowledge early-on that some of our methods will provide information useful to improving the educational experience of our students, while others will not meet our expectations and should be discarded.

Departmental Program Assessment
During 1992-94, faculty in all departments (including those in graduate
programs) met and developed the plans presented in the individual departmental assessment plans. The plans were developed through discussions involving all departmental faculty. A typical pattern was for one member of the department to attend an "Assessment in the Major" faculty development workshop, and bring that information back to their department: Next the faculty assessment consultant would facilitate the first departmental assessment planning meeting, assisting department faculty as they worked out their approach to plan development. We believe that this type of academy-wide involvement strengthens faculty knowledge of and commitment to assessment, and, with the component of colleague review through the Educational Policies Committee, ensures that evidence-based educational program changes aimed at improving student learning will actually take place.

How the Departmental Plan Works to Implement Learning Improvement
New assessment plan guidelines became a required part of the Departmental Program Review Process in 1993. The guidelines lead each department through the following process: (1) the department gathers student learning evidence as directed by its individual plan, feeding back information to ,students on their individual performance as appropriate; (2) faculty in the department meet to review the evidence and ascertain what it tells them about the strengths and weaknesses of their program; (3) as the department prepares its departmental review, it uses this evidence about student achievement to plan improvements to its program; (4) the department presents its Program Review with evidence of student learning and evidence-backed requests for program changes to the Educational Policies Committee on its scheduled review date; (5) the Educational Policies Committee may approve the Program Review and requested changes, or it may return it to the department for suggested revisions and re-submission/approval; (6) if program improvements, as approved by the Educational Policies Committee, require new funding, the department chair works with the Dean of the College to prepare an Action Plan for consideration by the University-wide Planning Committee.

The information Above describes the formal process for change, but St. Ambrose's experience with this process had indicated that what happens informally is also valuable. The "guidelines" have contributed to our culture of assessment by providing a common format among faculty from the varied disciplines for ongoing conversation about student learning and ways to improve it.

Reliability and Validity of Departmental Methods
Each department is using multiple methods to assess student learning. Validity of assessment findings is enhanced because faculty in each department discussed and selected the most useful and appropriate methods to examine student learning in their respective discipline. Reliability of findings is improved by the use of multiple methods in each department.

Accountability for Departmental Learning Improvement
Departmental accountability for improvement is ensured through the process
of Departmental Program Review by the Educational Policies Committee: Departmental Program Reviews will not be approved if departments fail to present assessment evidence, and explain how it is used to improve learning. In addition, departments desiring funding to implement academic program changes must first have the changes approved by the Educational Policies Committee. Historically, this system of colleague review has proven an effective means of achieving academic improvement at St. Ambrose University, and we are pleased that the process is now being informed by systematically collected evidence regarding student learning, and that we will be able to more productively target our improvement efforts.

General Education Program Assessment
In early fall 1992, the Provost appointed faculty from each of the three colleges to the General Education Assessment Task Force. The Task Force spent 1992-93 working with the faculty to describe the goals of the General Education Program, and 1993-94 developing an assessment plan. During this time, the faculty was engaged in the experience of departmental-level assessment planning; participated in a January I993 two day workshop and consultation by Dr. Peter Ewell (60% of our faculty attended this between-semester program); and attended a day-long presentation to a11 faculty by Dr. Thomas A. Angelo at the fall 1993 opening faculty assembly.

General Education Program Goals
The first challenge facing the Task Force was to develop a goals statement for student learning in the General Education Program. At that time there were at least three statements which were directing faculty thinking about General Education:(1) the St. Ambrose mission statement, particularly the statement, "The mission of St. Ambrose University is to enable all its students to develop intellectually, spiritually, ethically, socially, artistically, and physically in order to enrich their own lives and the lives of others;" (2) the "Divisional Goals for General Education," a set of goals which had been developed to provide curriculum guidance to the academic divisions prior to 1987 when St. Ambrose changed from a college to a university; and (3) a set of goals for student learning agreed on by the faculty according to survey results in 1982-84, and re-affirmed at the 1988 opening assembly. The Task Force spent its first year studying these mission and goal statements, as well as other related documents (Appendix D), and collapsing them into the statement. This was accomplished with faculty input via a survey, and through forums (Appendix D). The Task Force recognized that the reduced goals statement was still extensive, but decided that this was the place to begin our first round of General Education Program assessment activities. In other words, the Task Force decided to work with a statement that was somewhat broad, but that was genuine, rather than develop a statement that was textbook in its objective precision, but which had little valid relation to the way faculty were actually thinking about the General Education Program student learning experience.

General Education Program Learning Assessment and Accountability
During 1993-1994, following development of the goals statement, the General Education Task Force developed a plan for the documentation and improvement of student learning in the General Education Program. This plan was reviewed by the faculty (Appendix D), and resulted in a request for funding through an Action Plan submitted to the 1994-95 University-wide Planning Committee (Appendix E). The Plan was partially funded for 1995-96, and will be re-submitted in fall 1995 for full funding.

The plan delegates responsibility for General Education Program assessment to a Director of General Education (a new position requested in the General Education Action Plan), who works with a General Education Assessment Committee composed of faculty representing all three colleges. The General Education Director will be a member of the faculty working on one-quarter release time, will report to the Provost, and will be assisted by the Vice President for Institutional Research in gathering evidence of student learning as directed by the General Education Assessment Plan. The work of this faculty committee will parallel the Departmental Program Review assessment process. The Committee will study this assessment evidence to learn what it reveals about student learning of the General Education goals. When evidence documents areas of weakness in student learning of the goals, the Committee will develop recommendations for program improvements. These proposals will be brought to the Educational Policies Committee for approval. If the approved program changes require new funds, the General Education Director will work with the Provost to develop an action plan to submit for consideration by the University-wide Planning Committee. Recommendations for major program changes (such as described in the "Vision 2000" statement developed by faculty and presented in Appendix D), will be brought before the entire faculty through forums and the faculty assembly.

Schedule of Activities
During 1995-96, the General Education Committee will begin its first year by reviewing evidence of student learning which has been gathered over the past year according to the plan developed by the original General Education Assessment Task Force. The Committee will use this information to develop and pilot graduating senior interviews in the spring. If analysis of evidence collected warrants it, the Committee will begin developing program improvement recommendations for the Educational Policies Committee. In addition, the Committee will develop a proposal for consideration by the Educational Policies Committee which would: (1) clarify the way in which departments offering General Education courses are to assess learning in those courses during their Departmental Program Review process; and (2) recommend revised criteria for new General Education course offerings.

The work of the General Education Committee in the years after 1995-96 will be an ongoing process consisting of the collection of student learning documents, analysis of this evidence, and feedback through recommendations for learning improvement. The projected yearly schedule would find the Committee working in fall semester to study evidence gathered over the previous year. The Committee would analyze the evidence, determine strengths and weaknesses indicated by their findings, and work during spring semester to develop program improvement recommendations which would be brought to the Educational Policies Committee for their consideration and approval by the end of the academic year. Recommendations for major changes would be brought to the faculty assembly. Program changes approved by the Educational Policies Committee which required funding would be written as Action Plans over the summer, and submitted by the General Education Director and Provost to the University-wide Planning Committee in the fall.

Reliability and Validity of Methods
Validity and reliability are enhanced by the use of multiple types of methods to examine learning in the various goal areas, and by involving groups responsible for different areas of learning in the collection and analysis of evidence. Additional studies examining the overall student educational experience (retention and graduation rates; research reports from support services and committees such as Student Services, Students with Disabilities, the International Education Task Force, the Athletic Board) will be collected by the Vice President for Institutional Research, and made available to faculty as regularly disseminated "Research on Student Learning Reports.

APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONAL MISSION ANALYSIS
A Report on
St. Ambrose Community Perceptions
of Institutional Values
St. Ambrose Institutional Values Project
ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY
Davenport, Iowa April 1992

Introduction
The St. Ambrose Institutional Values Project is a two year community-wide effort intended to encourage reflection on and bring a shared focus to our institutional identity. The purpose of this Mission Analysis questionnaire and report is to: (a) raise community awareness of the institutional values expressed in the St. Ambrose University mission statement; and (b) provide a foundation of evidence which will serve to encourage continued campus thought and discussion on the following questions, 1) What are the St. Ambrose institutional values? How are they defined? What do they uniquely mean here? 2) What are the goals of these values, the objectives, the intended outcomes? 3) Are the values present in what we do, in the curriculum and the overall campus environment? 4) Are our students developing the values and characteristics intended by a St Ambrose experience and what is our body of evidence to support that?

In this study the word "value" is defined as a standard or guideline for institutional activity. This study categorizes the mission statement into eleven institutional values: Catholic institution; Provide Quality Instruction (and Degrees) in Liberal Arts along with Pre-Professional and Career Preparation; Provide Life-Long Learning Programs; Offer Programs at Off-Site Locations; Stress Excellence in Teaching; Stress Excellence in Learning; Foster Mutual Respect; Encourage Research; Encourage Public Service; Offer Programs to Meet Individual Student Needs; Enable Students to Develop in Six Mission Goal Areas. The final institutional value is also an outcomes statement regarding what we intend to accomplish with our students.

A Summary of Findings begins on the next page [below]. The source for those findings, the Summary of Community Responses, is on pages six through thirteen. The Methodology for this study is described on pages fourteen and fifteen. The Mission Statement is included on page sixteen and information on the Institutional Values Project is on the final page.

St. Ambrose University shares its interest in self study with other institutions, particularly private religious ones. The President of one nearby Catholic college describes a context useful to consider as the St Ambrose community moves forward in examining its institutional identity.

At times we would all like a Catholic college to put its feet down and establish what ideas belong and what ones do not. There is something insidious in human nature, something which would like to pickle and preserve what is most precious. The dynamics of Christian history suggest that a Catholic college dare not enter into the business of pickling and preserving. A Catholic college ought to be confident enough about its way of embodying Christian tradition to cherish the vitality of debate about that tradition and value the persons of those who disagree. A Catholic college must be unashamed to focus its best attention on ordering the mundane, yet cultivate a lively expectation that what is predictable is passing away. The foundations of belief must be clear in a Catholic college, but there ought to be a palpable sense of a new age breaking in with dynamics which defy expectations.

Brother Dietrich Reinhart, OSB, President St. John's University, Minnesota

Summary of the Findings

1. Catholic Institution
The visible Catholic presence at St Ambrose is conveyed through the influence of clergy and Catholic leaders, daily mass, campus ministry, and theology courses. While some members of the community feel Catholic dogma and practices should be more regularly imposed, others note that we have many non-Catholics at St. Ambrose whose religious needs are not being specifically addressed. There is recognition that Catholic activities are offered not forced. In addition, there are indications that spiritual development may not be sought or desired by some of our students as part of their educational experience.

Many of the institutional values identified throughout the study include qualities which are rooted in the Catholic heritage of St. Ambrose; the community definition of mutual respect which emerges in this study is but one example. Validly discerning (and affirming) other qualities will require further community reflection and study.

The increasing diversity of our community and the specific understandings of what it means to be "Catholic" will pose challenges regarding how St. Ambrose defines, sustains and conveys its Catholic values and heritage.

2. Provide Quality Instruction (and Degrees) in Liberal Arts along with Pre-Professional and Career Preparation

There are strong indications that many people from all groups of our community feel we are meeting this value, that we do offer a good to excellent quality education. The Mission Analysis further indicates that there is wide-spread appreciation for the variety of majors and degrees, and for the growth of career programs. However, there is concern among faculty and a few students that the strong recent career emphasis may erode our liberal arts heritage.

The University faces a growing challenge in deciding how to distribute its resources so that it can meet its mission of enabling our students to enrich their lives through career studies white also ensuring them the curriculum time and support to build the intellectual foundations intended by our St. Ambrose liberal arts tradition.

3. Provide a Variety of Lifelong Learning Programs

While SL Ambrose has developed many life-long learning programs, the Mission Analysis reveals that our community may not be completely aware of them or may not define them as such. This institutional value unites many seemingly diverse University programs, among them the evening and weekend classes for adults in the workforce; professional development activities for faculty, staff and administrators; the Professional Development Center which serves the regional community; public programs such as the Galvin Fine Arts Series and our support of CommUniversity.

One challenge in this area is to develop greater community awareness regarding these life-long learning programs and their mission-based connection.

4. Offer Programs at Off-Site Locations

St. Ambrose may wish to consider revising this institutional value from its present language to include the notion that the University serves regional community needs ; for that is the way many members of the University community appear to define it. Respondents' ideas of serving regional community needs extend beyond the limited wording of "off-site locations" to include the broader way in which St. Ambrose has worked to develop educational partnership programs (Access Center, Transition Center) and has responded with new needed professional degree programs (Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy). There is much agreement that St. Ambrose meets this value.

5. Stress Excellence in Teaching

There is good evidence from all groups that our community has a shared understanding of what it means to be an excellent teacher and that most faculty are effectively conveying the subject matter of their disciplines to students. Indeed for many of our students the "one-to-one" relationship with dedicated and caring teachers appears to be their most valued experience here. Mission Analysis responses indicate that strategies in place which are important to this effort include: small class size; support for faculty through development activities and pay equity efforts; ensuring faculty the time to teach and meet with students; a teaching environment of academic freedom and openness; regular and systematic faculty evaluation. The challenge to our growing and changing University, is to sustain and further improve this teaching climate by monitoring class size as well as the amount of administrative demands and course overloads so that faculty can continue focusing on teaching and meeting with students; and to develop an improved teacher evaluation and reward system so that good teachers are better recognized and shown appreciation while poor ones are identified and developed or let go.

6. Stress Excellence in Learning

What image do we share of the excellent St Ambrose learner? How do we describe that student? In what ways is this description unique to our institution? What learning environment strategies have we created to develop that individual? While there is a clear notion in the community regarding what constitutes and promotes excellence in teaching; there is a less coherent community focus regarding what defines and enhances excellence in learning. The Mission Analysis points to some characteristics which may serve as working indicators of this value. Evidence of institutional commitment to excellence includes our low student/professor classroom ratio, developmental programs, and recent improvements in classrooms and facilities. However, for many people, a feeling that we don't sufficiently challenge our students, our inadequate library and campus student study areas, the absence of an enrichment/honors program, our admissions standards, and our lack of program assessment indicate contradictions to the notion of excellence. There is also a sense among some that our students are not learning enough about personal responsibility- that perhaps our "one-to-one," caring environment downplays competition and consequences, The challenge in meeting this institutional value is to articulate a clear definition of what learning excellence uniquely means at our institution and to build shared community understandings regarding those expectations so that Ac St Ambrose concept of excellence in learning becomes as strongly ingrained in our campus culture as the concept of teaching excellence.

7. Foster an Environment of Mutual Respect

There is good evidence that SL Ambrose works to foster an environment of mutual respect. Respondents describe the atmosphere here as caring, family-like, friendly and honest; as a place where Acre is a sincere regard for individuals. The overall Mission Analysis points to an underlying community definition of respect which may contribute to this atmosphere, the often- reported one-to-one relationship - the notion of valuing people as unique individuals and then taking the time to learn about and interact with them accordingly.

At the same tome some of our people point to problems in the environment. St. Ambrose exists in a larger society where class and group stereotypes are culturally well-embedded, and there is evidence that those attitudes affect our campus climate; particularly among some staff, women, minorities and residential students. Specifically, there are staff members who feel that people in other groups don't regard them and their contributions with respect. Some women employees feel the University shows lack of respect for their capabilities through low pay, by not mentoring and promoting them, and by failing to bring more women into faculty or the highest level administrative positions. There is concern about racism here and many feel we have much to do in teaching new attitudes to some members of our community; and in hiring a more diverse faculty. Many residential students contend that our visitation rules show lack of respect for young adults' abilities to make responsible social development decisions.

The challenges reported here are significant; but Mission Analysis responses reveal evidence of a promising community definition of respect - the "one-to-one" notion. One overall challenge (and opportunity) is to affirm and expand this quality; encouraging it as a foundation for discourse and action as we address these important issues of mutual respect.

8. Encourage Research

Mission Analysis evidence suggests that St. Ambrose is not paying much attention to this value, Few in the community discussed it and only two people reported research encouragement. Most respondents who addressed this area noted that St. Ambrose should be more supportive of research now that we are a university. The overall Mission Analysis points to a cautionary note as we move forward in encouraging this institutional value. Here the language of the mission statement becomes particularly important - we stress excellence in teaching and encourage research.

The institution will want to consider what actions can be taken to develop a climate which clearly values research, but which does not create a perception among faculty that it is required or supercedes the classroom experience.

9. Encourage Public Service

There is general agreement among those who discussed this area that the institution is not doing enough to meet this value, that we should model and expect more public service. One student expressed concern that public service may be used as a form of punishment. That single is instructive. It suggests that we may be failing to adequately convey the nature and value of public service; but it also says that we must be careful how we encourage this activity.

The challenge here is to develop increased awareness, expanded opportunities and stronger encouragement for public service; and to do that in such a way that more individuals learn to value it as a meaningful part of their lives.

10. Offer Focused Programs to Meet the Individual Needs of Diverse Students

Community responses indicate that St. Ambrose is working positively in this direction through our developmental, multicultural, minorities, disabilities, career planning, and counseling programs; campus clubs, special events and social activities also play a role here. But there is evidence that our programs may be too targeted at serving traditional age residential students whose needs are easily addressed between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., and who are easily communicated with through campus mail boxes. Nearly two-thirds (65) of our undergraduates and all of our graduate students commute; and that population ranges from the traditional age, unemployed, full-time student to the non-traditional age, part-time student with work and family responsibilities.

One important challenge in meeting this value is to examine the extent to which all of our programs are addressing the needs of St Ambrose commuter students.

11. Enable Students to Develop in Six Mission Areas to Enrich Their Own and Others Lives

Responses indicate that the St. Ambrose community is aware of our institutional focus on and sees opportunities for intellectual, spiritual and social development. However, ethical, artistic and physical development were less frequently addressed. While a low response rate for these latter areas may be because many perceive them as folded into a curriculum (General Education courses), St Ambrose must consider it a signal that our efforts to teach these three areas may be too narrowly targeted and thus lead many students to view them as less significant to their overall personal growth. There is also evidence that St Ambrose is not working hard enough to explain all of these learning expectations to students: Many who completed the Mission Analysis reported that this was the first time they had been made aware that we want them to develop in these six areas.

Several institutional values challenges converge in this closing student outcomes statement. How clearly does our institution define and convey to all students the nature of our learning expectations? To what extent and in which areas should resources be directed toward unproved implementation of our mission's goals and the development of Christian values? Given the growth and emphasis on career knowledge, should the mission statement be revised to more specifically reflect the expansion and goals of these educational activities? The Institutional Mission Analysis contains evidence that these questions are of central importance as St. Ambrose moves forward with self-study and planning. '

Methodology

A. The Questionnaire

The Institutional Mission Analysis was an open-ended questionnaire distributed in fall 1991 to members of the St. Ambrose community asking them to respond to four items after reading the mission statement. These items were derived from a longer questionnaire which members of the Institutional Values Project had completed as part of a Council of Independent Colleges workshop on Values Education during May 1991.

1) List important ways you think St. Ambrose is accomplishing its mission.

2) List things we are not doing that we should be doing.

3) List things we are doing at St. Ambrose that contradict the mission.

4) What values are actually acted out at St. Ambrose, but are not included in the mission.

This questionnaire was planned to be exploratory. Our committee did not want to lead the community's responses by defining the values or issues surrounding them; rather we wanted each individual to look at the mission statement, think about St. Ambrose, and tell us how they were personally experiencing the mission.

B. The Population and Sample

The questionnaire was distributed to all full-time faculty, staff, and administrators at opening Faculty and Staff Assemblies and through campus mail. It was distributed to all board members at their fall meeting and to alumni executive committee members at their fall meeting. All juniors, and graduate students with 24 hours or more received questionnaires in the mail.

Efforts to encourage a good return rate included: describing the values project at opening Faculty and Staff Assemblies, Board Meeting, and Alumni Executive Committee Meeting; a letter from Dr. Rogalski requesting cooperation accompanied each questionnaire; articles in the Ambrose Magazine, Non-Traditional Student Council Newsletter, and Daily Bulletin: a second one in campus mail extending the return deadline; enclosing a stamped and addressed envelope to off-campus subjects; personal one-to-one efforts by members of the Committee encouraging colleagues and students to participate.

Forty-seven of 92 full-time faculty (51) returned the analysis; 40 (12 self-identified as administrators and 28 as staff) from our original list of 122_saff (33) returned questionnaires; and seven or 20 board members (35). Only three alumni returned surveys and only one of those ;addressed all four questions. (While those alumni responses were considered in the analysis summary they were not included in the community responses as the numbers were considered too low to be representative.) Student responses were low (39 or less than 9 of the 490 distributed). Two committee members distributed questionnaires in their upper level undergraduate classes, and they were also distributed to members of the Student Government Association and the Non-Traditional Student Council to ensure greater student voice in the study. This method added 358 competed questionnaires for a total of 97 students represented in the study. (While this change in distribution method poses some reliability and validity problems, those issues were considered secondary to the problems posed by the previous low representation numbers.)

C. Unit of Analysis

The ideas (concepts) contained in each individual's questionnaire were the unit of analysis. Each idea accounts for one response.

D. Method of Analysis

This study was based on content analysis methodology, a method which systematically analyzes qualitative data for themes and patterns. Specifically, the analysis proceeded as follows. A committee of staff, administrator, student and faculty read the responses and transferred each idea expressed on each questionnaire to a note card, a concept card. Each concept card was coded for question number, case (individual questionnaire), and group (faculty, staff, student, etc.) Concept cards were read and grouped together according to the issue categories which emerged (such as "we have mutual trust", "good faculty development", "we don't challenge students", etc.). The issue categories were then grouped according to the relevant institutional values which are expressed in the mission statement.

E. Efforts to Establish Analysis Reliability and Validity

1. A group norming exercise was conducted prior to the first committee reading of the questionnaires to improve consistency, inter-rater reliability, among the readers as they transferred the questionnaire ideas to concept cards.

2. For each issue category, case numbers on concepts cards were checked for possible duplications. This was to prevent skewing of the data. For instance, if one individual had written and we had recorded on separate cards, the idea of "atmosphere of personal concern and the idea of "caring community", this would have appeared to be two responses when it actually represented only one concept, one response.

3. One faculty member who teaches research methods coded the concept cards into issue categories and under institutional values. This contributed to reliability by establishing consistency. Members of the subcommittee were consulted as the thematic grouping decisions were made to improve the validity of those grouping decisions.

4. The detailed "Summary of Community Responses" was studied by the Institutional Values Project Committee to assure that the data reported supported the "Summary of Findings."

APPENDIX D

FACULTY MATERIALS
program materials reviewed by faculty 1993-94

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE - REPORT TO FACULTY
April 8, 1993

The General Education Assessment Task Force is a two year task force which was appointed by the Provost in the fall of 1993 to:

1) Specify the goals of the General Education Program (1993). (Please note: The Task Force has been charged with identifying and describing what is actually happening in the General Education Program; not with recommending what should be happening nor with how we should change General
Education for the future.)

2) Develop a plan for assessing student learning of those goals (1993-94).

Task Force members are: Linda Brown, Ann Deigl, Michael Halstead, Corinne Johnson, Richard Legg, Dean Marple, Joseph McCaffrey, James Mullins, Joan Trapp.

In its goal specification research, the Task Force has studied the following materials and documents:

1982-84 series of seven separate faculty surveys on SAC curriculum goals and a report on
the 1988 faculty discussion of those goals during the opening fall assembly.
General Education Divisional Goals
SAU Mission and Beliefs statements
1992-93 Institutional Mission Analysis
A retention study of and selection of graduated student transcripts from the 1988 cohort
Professional literature on General Education, notably, "Some Guidelines for Assessing
General Education" by Peter Ewell
St. Ambrose Assessment Plan 1992-94
Description of multicultural course changes initiated as a result of Title III and Lilly Grants
"View" materials sent by the Admissions Office to prospective students
1988 Self Study prepared for the NCA (goals and assessment section)
Values Committee Meeting Notes (May 1992) citing preliminary conclusions reached
following a year-long study of campus values
1979 St. Ambrose "Position Paper on the Meaning, Obligations, and Implications of Being
a Catholic College"
Registrar's Spring 1993 listing of approved General Education courses

The attached, Mission, Goals and Objectives for the General Education Program at St. Ambrose University - Draft Statement, is the result of this study; and the Task Force is now seeking faculty written response before beginning work to finalize the statement. We ask that you read and consider the attached preliminary draft and share your written comments with us by April 22,1993. If you have questions, comments or concerns, you are invited and encouraged to discuss them with any of the Task Force members listed above. Thank you.

MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE GENERAL
EDUCATION PROGRAM AT ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY
(D-R-A-F-T 4/8/93)

Mission
The General Education Program works to fulfill the mission of St. Ambrose University of enabling all
students to "develop intellectually, spiritually, ethically, socially, artistically, and physically in order to
enrich their own lives and the lives of others," by providing a program of study which strives to develop
student skills, understandings and values related to the mission goals. In addition, it is the intent of
this program to build student recognition of the relationships among and between the General Education
Goal Areas as well as the connection and application of this learning to the present and future contexts
of their own lives.

Goals and Objectives
I. Skills ("Do") Knowledge expressed by action, tools, practice, implementing

writing
small group skills
speaking/speech
P.E. skills
interpersonal skills
computer
math
library
critical thinking
culture comfort skills
work skills

II. Understanding/Content ("Know") Alternate ways of knowing. (Do all areas below involve (a) language of the discipline, (b) processes -- how the discipline proceeds with its work, (c) outcomes -- perhaps the Gen Ed Divisional and discipline-specific goals could be useful here.)

Philosophy
Fine Arts
Theology
Science
Language
Social Science
Literature
History

III. Attitudes/Affective/Values ("Think About")

P.E. (A healthy mind in a...)
Freedom, Justice, Equality
Multiculturalism
Self-responsibility, Autonomy
(Religious?) Tolerance
Caring, Service, Community Responsibility
Developing one's own personal
Language of the Discipline (?)
Aesthetic

FACULTY RESPONSE TO GEN ED GOALS DRAFT
(Please send this completed response to Ann Deigl by Thursday, April 22, 1993)

Name (If you wish to comment anonymously, please do answer the two questions below.)
College

I have been at St. Ambrose __five years or less __over five years.

Please organize your response according to the questions below. You may answer below, on the back of this form, or on another sheet of paper. If you respond on a separate sheet, attach this form to i Thank you.

1. Areas of Agreement?
2. Areas of Disagreement?
3. What is Missing?

FACULTY FORUM
Describing General Education Program Goals
Thursday, September 16 at 2:00 p.m. .
Ambrose 210

A report of the April 1993 Faculty Survey regarding the proposed General Education Mission and Goals statement (below) follows this page. The General Education Task Force will finalize the Gen Ed Goals description during September so that plans for assessment can proceed and be finalized. Please share your comments with the Task Force.

Mission, Goals and Objectives for the General Education Program at Ambrose University: A Description of the Present Program
(April 1993 draft description)

General Education Program Mission
The General Education Program works to fulfill the St. Ambrose University mission of enabling
all students to "develop intellectually, spiritually, ethically, socially, artistically, and physically",
in order to enrich the own lives and the lives of others," by providing a program of study which strives
to develop student skills, understandings and values related to the mission goals. In addition, it is the
intent of this program to build student recognition of the relationships among and between the General
Education Goal Areas as well as the connection and application of this learning to the present and future contexts of their own lives.

General Education Program Goals and Objective
SKILLS ("Do") Knowledge expressed by action, tools, practice, implementing

Written communication
Small group skills
Oral communication
Health and recreation skills
Interpersonal skills
Computer literacy
Mathematical reasoning skills
Library skills
Critical thinking skills
Work and study skills

UNDERSTANDING/CONTENT ("Know")
Alternative ways of knowing;
involving: (a) language of the discipline, (b) processes-how the discipline proceeds with its work, (c) limitations of the discipline.

Philosophy
Fine Arts
Theology
Science
Language
Social Science
Literature
History

ATTITUDES/VALUES ("Think About")

Tolerance of differences
Self-responsibility, Autonomy
Freedom of inquiry and dissent
Caring, Service, Community Responsibility
Justice and Equality
Personal aesthetic

Information for the April 1994 Faculty Assembly
GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN

Preface
The General Education Assessment Task Force has been meeting for two years to study, consult with faculty colleagues, and develop a plan for assessment of the present General Education Program. Task Force members are: Linda Brown, Ann Freeberg, Michael Halstead, Corinne Johnson, Richard Legg, Dean Marple, Joseph McCaffrey, James Mullins, Joan Trapp.

I. Assessment Program
The chart on the following page depicts the General Education Program goals, curriculum, and assessment methods. Program mission and goals are presented in attachment B and assessment methods are described in more detail in attachment C.

II. Recommendations for Improving the General Education Program
Based on its two year study, the General Education Assessment Task Force makes recommendations regarding the four areas below.

A) Appoint a half-time Dean of General Education from the senior liberal arts faculty to assure program quality (review new course submissions, review departmental program review assessments of general education offerings, engage faculty in senior interviews). The Task Force will submit a plan for this to the Fall 1994 Planning Committee.

B) Publish an "annual report" on the quality of the General Education
Program at St. Ambrose. This would be distributed to the faculty by the Dean of General Education. The report would describe new classes added during the year, rationales for their addition, and information gathered during the year regarding student learning in the program.

C) Revise the departmental program review statement regarding the assessment of departmental General Education offerings. The Task force will submit a proposal to the Education Policies Committee in early Fall 1994.

D) Formalize the statement of major process and use it as an assessment method to provide early feedback to students regarding their basic skills. The form would be completed by the student and the major department by the first semester of the junior year. A new form will be drafted over the summer and reviewed with faculty in early Fall 1994. Examples of the type of items which may be included in the new form are presented in attachment D.

Attachments
A. General Education Program Assessment Chart
B. Statement of General Education Program Goals
C. Description of General Education Program Assessment Methods
D. New "Statement of Major" Example (from the Education Department)

St. Ambrose University
Academic Assessment Plan
Fall 1994

These tables present an outline of the St. Ambrose University Academic Assessment Plan. The plan will be finalized following receipt of faculty comments. Faculty may comment by: (1) attending the Faculty Forum scheduled for Thursday, October 27 at 2:00, (2) sending a written response to Ann Freeberg, Office for Institutional Research, (3) making their thoughts known to any member of the General Education Assessment Task Force (members are listed on the next page).

BACKGROUND
1. Committees Providing Leadership for Assessment Activities in 1991-1994
2. Chronology of Assessment Activities at St. Ambrose 1991-1994

DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
3. Departmental Programs: Assessment Philosophy, Guidelines and Schedule
4. Departmental Programs: Methods of Assessment
5. Departmental Programs: Implementing Assessment Methods and Improvements Based on Assessment

GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
6. General Education Program: Mission, Goals and Assessment Philosophy
7. General Education Program: Program Description and Methods of Assessing What is Taught
8. General Education Program: Methods of Assessing What Students Learn
9. General Education Program: Implementing Student Learning Assessment Methods
10. General Education Program: Implementing Improvements Based on Assessment

GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM VISION 2000
Presidential Assembly
August 24, 1994

VISION STATEMENT
By the year 2(XX), the General Education Program will have completed one cycle of assessment a process which has informed the faculty regarding strengths and weaknesses of student learning in the program. The Program will have a director who. along with a General Education Committee, has used this assessment information to lead faculty in developing a revised and improved General Education Program, one which includes the following elements:

1) It is a General Education Program noted for the unique mark it leaves on students, a distinctive St. Ambrose experience.

2) The Program is coherent for transfers and marks them also with the St. Ambrose experience, but accomplishes this with consideration of their transfer hour situation.

3) It is a unified and unifying program.

4) Students know what General Education means, what it is.

5) The Program emphasizes connections and relationships-a coherent whole rather than a list of courses. Many courses are team taught, cross-disciplinary, and integrate knowledge of several areas.

6) Students learn that learning is important as an end in itself.

7) Staff attend in-services explaining the General Education Program so that they can reinforce learning among student workers in their offices, especially of communication, math and computer skills, and values areas.

8) The Program recognizes the importance of/makes connections between the traditional western core and the diverse multicultural curriculum developed over the past decade.

9) Courses designated for the General Education Program are selected based on the best educational interests of our students rather than reflecting the marketing drives or turf wars of individual departments.

10) The Program reflects an awareness of accrediting organization guidelines, but is not driven by them.

11) Student learning in the program is evaluated by assessment instruments beyond quantitative tests requiring demonstration of knowledge through qualitative methods such as portfolio.

12) Appropriate resources are directed to the program. It is funded as a standing program (director, faculty development funds for new course development, consideration of faculty workload), and not regarded simply as an extension of individual department costs.

STEPS TO REALIZE VISION BY THE YEAR 2000
1) Complete First cycle of assessment according to 1994-95 General Education Assessment Plan.
2) Appoint director and General Education Committee
3) Director and Committee review assessment information and prepare recommendation to restructure General Education based on their evaluation of assessments.
4) General Education proposal is reviewed by faculty.
5) Faculty approve new General Education Program

Return to Assessment Home