USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Use an institution of your choosing one in Georgia that you can obtain information about through its website.
For this question, respond to both parts of these instructions:
1.
After thinking about your institution, apply each part of Suskie’s (2018) description to what you see to be the current status of assessment efforts.
Include an analysis of where it appears there are strengths, a need for improvement, or both, in the process of assessing student learning outcomes.
The Four-Step Teaching-Learning-Assessment Process
1. Establish clear, observable expected goals for student learning
2. Ensure that students have sufficient opportunities to achieve those goals
3. Systematically gather, analyze, and interpret evidence of how well student learning meets those goals
4. Use the resulting information to understand and improve student learning
Suskie, Linda. Assessing Student Learning : A Common Sense Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2018.
2.
Second, explain how the current status of assessment efforts compares to what you read in Kinzie’s (2010) article Attached, “Perspectives from Campus Leaders on the Current State of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment.” Remember to provide citations from the readings for the information that you use
P
olicymakers, accrediting bodies, and association leaders continue
to focus on assessing student learning outcomes. But what is happening on
the ground at colleges and universities? Where does student learning out-
comes assessment rank in importance on an institution’s action agenda? To what
extent are faculty involved in assessment activities and using the results for improv-
ing student learning?
The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) is a mul-
tiyear effort to further the student learning outcomes agenda nationally. NILOA
staff conducted four focus groups with academic deans, provosts, presidents, and
directors of institutional research from a variety of two- and four-year institutions
during 2009–2010 to discuss the state of assessment of student learning outcomes
on campus. Roundtable discussions were conducted at meetings of the Association
of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), American Council on Education
(ACE), and the Association for Institutional Research (AIR). All told, we talked
with about forty-five academic leaders, representing a range of institutional types
and regions, to gain first-hand accounts of the state of efforts under way on cam-
puses. This article summarizes what these leaders had to say and considers how
the perceptions of academic leaders comport with findings from the 2009 NILOA
Survey report “More Than You Think, Less Than We Need: Learning Outcomes
Assessment in American Higher Education” (www.learningoutcomeassessment.
org/NILOAsurveyresults09.htm), which describes what colleges and universities
are doing to measure student learning. Four prominent themes cut across the focus
group discussions and organize the main ideas in this paper:
1. Assessment has taken root on campus.
2. Accreditation is the major catalyst for student learning outcomes assessment.
3. Faculty involvement is central to meaningful assessment.
4. Best practices in assessment weave assessment into organizing structures.
Assessment
UPdate
Perspectives from Campus Leaders
on the Current State of Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment
Jillian Kinzie
September–October 2010
Volume 22, Number 5
Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education
CONTENTS
ARTICLES
Perspectives from Campus 1
Leaders on the Current State of Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment
Jillian Kinzie
Editor’s Notes 3
Trudy W. Banta
Peer Review of Program 5
Assessment Efforts: One Strategy,
Multiple Gains
Margaret Fong Bloom
Assessing Doctoral Applicants’ 8
Readiness for Doctoral-Level Work
Michelle A. Maher, Benita J. Barnes
COLUMN
From the States 11
Peter T. Ewell
FEATURE
Recommended Reading 13
Susan Kahn
View this newsletter online at
wileyonlinelibrary.com
DOI 10.1002/au.225
© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2� Assessment�Update� •� September–October�2010� •� Volume�22,�Number�5� •� ©�2010�Wiley�Periodicals,�Inc.� •� DOI�10.1002/au
Assessment Has Generally Taken Root, and on Many Campuses Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Is Thriving
In the last decade, assessment has realized some important developmental steps. Accord-
ing to the dean at Drew University, “We’re in a different place than ten years ago. There is
a core of people who believe in assessment and work with their colleagues on outcomes
assessment.” Most campus leaders credited regional and professional accreditation with
helping assessment gain ground on campus. Several leaders indicated that visible efforts
like the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) and the independent college-sponsored
site, U-CAN, had helped expand discussions about assessment and accountability among
campus constituents and external stakeholders. Teagle Foundation-funded initiatives have
furthered progress in developing assessment systems in the private liberal arts college sector
since 2004 (see grantmaking activity www.teaglefoundation.org). The Luther College aca-
demic dean reported that learning outcomes assessment practices there had matured over the
last several years, so that now at least half of the faculty are involved in assessment. Luther
faculty are learning a lot about student learning outcomes through work with a consortium
of colleges in the Midwest focused on the assessment of writing and critical thinking. At Or-
egon State University and Towson University all undergraduate programs now have learn-
ing outcomes. After a flawless accreditation review, Eastern Kentucky University embarked
on an extensive analysis of course syllabi to examine the extent to which learning outcomes
were common across sections of the same course. A president in the California State Univer-
sity system declared that assessment has been aggressively approached at the system level,
and it seems that “we’ve been assessing everything that moves.”
Assessment at Westminster College grew out of the strategic planning process, and
discussions about what it meant to be a Westminster graduate culminated in the articula-
tion of learning goals specific to a Westminster education. Westminster since has devel-
oped rubrics in each academic program to assess learning goals.
Assessment Update
Progress, Trends, and Practices
in Higher Education
September–October�2010�
Volume�22,�Number�5
Editor
Trudy�W.�Banta,�professor of higher
education and senior advisor to the
chancellor,�Indiana�University–�
Purdue�University�Indianapolis�(IUPUI)
Managing Editor
Karen�Elaine�Black,�director of program
review,�IUPUI
Assistant Editor
Frances�W.�Oblander,�director�of�institutional�
research�&�effectiveness,�South�University
Book Review Editor
Susan�Kahn,�director�of�institutional�
effectiveness,�IUPUI
Consulting Editors
Peter�T.�Ewell,�National�Center�for�Higher�
Education�Management�Systems
Thomas�Anthony�Angelo,�La�Trobe�University,
Victoria,�Australia
T.�Dary�Erwin,�James�Madison�University
Cecilia�L.�Lopez,�Harold�Washington�College
Marcia�Mentkowski,�Alverno�College
Jeffrey�A.�Seybert,�Johnson�County�
Community�College
Peter�J.�Gray,�United�States�Naval�Academy
Gary�R.�Pike,�IUPUI
Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Prac
tices in Higher Education (Print�ISSN�1041-6099;�
online� ISSN� 1536-0725� at� Wiley� Online� Library,�
wileyonlinelibrary.com)� is� published� bimonthly� by�
Wiley�Subscription�Services,�Inc.,�A�Wiley�Company,�at
Jossey-Bass,�989�Market�St.,�San�Francisco,�CA�94103-
1741.�Periodicals�Postage�Paid�at�San�Francisco,�CA,
and�additional�mailing�offices.�Individual�subscriptions�
are�$127�per�year�(institu�tional�$199).�Back�issues�are
available�in�limited�supply�at�$29�per�issue.�To�order,�
phone�toll-free�(888)�378-2537�or�fax�(888)�481-2665.
Visit�our�Web�site�at�www.josseybass.com.�Postmaster:
Send�address�changes�to�Assessment�Update,�Jossey-
Bass,�989�Market�St.,�San�Francisco,�CA�94103-1741.
Copyright�©�2010�Wiley�Periodicals,� Inc.,�A�Wiley�
Company.� All� rights� reserved.� Reproduction� or�
translation� of� any� part� of� this� work� beyond� that�
permitted�by�Section�107�or�108�of�the�1976�United�
States� Copyright� Act� without� permission� of� the�
copyright�owner�is�unlawful.�Requests�for�permis-
sion� or� further� information� should� be� addressed�
to� the� Permissions� Department,� c/o� John�Wiley� &�
Sons,�Inc.,�111�River�St.,�Hoboken,�NJ�07030;�(201)�
748-8789,�fax�(201)�748-6326,�www.wiley.com/go/�
permissions.
Call for Contributions
The editor welcomes short articles and news items for Assessment Update. Guidelines
follow for those who would like to contribute articles on outcomes assessment in higher
education.
• Content: Please send an account of your experience with assessment in higher
education. Include concrete examples of practice and results.
• Audience: Assessment Update readers are academic administrators, campus assess-
ment practitioners, institutional researchers, and faculty from a variety of fields.
All types of institutions are represented in the readership.
• Style: A report, essay, news story, or letter to the editor is welcome. Limited references
can be printed; however, extensive tables cannot be included.
• Format: In addition to standard manuscripts, news may be contributed via letter,
telephone, or fax (317) 274-4651. The standard manuscript format is a 60-space line
with 25 lines per page. Articles may be sent to
Word attachment. Please include your complete postal mailing address.
• Length: Articles should be four to eight typed, double-spaced pages (1,000–2,000
words). Annotations of recent publications for the Recommended Reading feature should
be 200–500 words in length. Short news items and content for the Memos section should
be about 50–200 words long.
• Copyright: Articles shall not have been registered for copyright or published
elsewhere prior to publication in Assessment Update.
• Deadlines: Each issue is typically planned four months before its publication.
Please address mailed contributions and comments to Trudy W. Banta, Editor,
Assessment Update, Suite 140 Administration Bldg., 355 N. Lansing St., Indianapolis,
IN 46202–2896. ■
(continued on page 14)
14� Assessment�Update� •� September–October�2010� •� Volume�22,�Number�5� •� ©�2010�Wiley�Periodicals,�Inc.� •� DOI�10.1002/au
The few presidents and deans who did
not view their efforts as very far along
indicated that the lack of progress was
tied to faculty asserting that assigning
grades was sufficient evidence of student
achievement. Most leaders commented
that the key to advancing assessment is
for it to flow more directly out of exist-
ing processes for learning. For most cam-
puses, the next big challenge is how to
use effectively an astounding amount of
data to improve student learning.
Accreditation as Catalyst for the
Assessment of Student Learning.
The 2009 NILOA Survey revealed that
across all institutional types regional and
specialized accreditation were the primary
drivers for student learning outcome as-
sessment activity. Our focus group dis-
cussions were consistent with the survey
results, providing specific examples of the
strong role that accreditation plays in the
use of assessment results. One administra-
tor commented that although it is accept-
able for accreditation to drive assessment,
the problem is that student learning out-
comes assessment results are rarely being
used to influence institutional improve-
ment. Another administrator lamented
that because accreditation is motivated by
a compliance mentality, little attention is
paid to the assessment interests and ques-
tions about student learning that are im-
portant to educational effectiveness.
Although the general complaint from
campus leaders was that the compliance
mentality can make assessment less mean-
ingful, several campus leaders described
using accreditation as a lever for assess-
ment. When Roosevelt University started
planning for their Higher Learning Com-
mission (HLC) reaffirmation process,
university leaders and faculty were intent
on achieving a ten-year approval and sug-
gested that the best way to achieve this
would be to develop meaningful assess-
ments while ensuring that activities and
evidence satisfied the HLC requirements.
The president, two associate deans, and
several senior faculty leaders participated
in the HLC Assessment Academy to pro-
vide further education and structured sup-
port, and devoted time to translating HLC
standards into institutional purposes.
Several academic leaders pointed to a
negative accreditation review as stimulat-
ing activity. As the dean of Centre College
put it, “there had been lots of talk [up to
then]…now we have to do it.” A president
whose institution is accredited by the Mid-
dle States Association (MSA) reported that
the MSA review was sobering, as it con-
cluded that the institution had made prog-
ress, but needed to do more. This critique
stimulated immediate action on his campus.
While accreditation is clearly a driver
for assessment, it is worrisome that the
focus of assessment is too often for re-
sponding to accreditation demands, and
less so for improving student learning,
allocating resources, or guiding strategic
planning. In this sense, accreditation may
devalue assessment for improvement.
As one dean noted, “We were advised
by our accreditors not to post ‘directions
for future study’ on our Web site, and to
only post the glowing aspects of our self-
study,” underscoring the long-standing
tension that Peter Ewell (2009) described
between assessment for improvement
and assessment for accountability.
Faculty Involvement Is Key
to Meaningful Assessment.
As with our focus group participants,
provosts responding to the 2009 NILOA
Survey indicated that engaging more
faculty is the major challenge to advanc-
ing assessment. A dean commented that
faculty view assessment as a “distraction
from the important job of teaching” and
grades as sufficient information about
how well students are learning. Com-
pounding the general complaint is that
several of the current criteria for educa-
tional effectiveness, such as increased
student retention and graduation rates,
are considered outside the purview and
interest of faculty.
On a positive note, faculty are inter-
ested in assessment evidence from au-
thentic student work that is directly linked
to teaching and learning. According to
a liberal arts college dean, “faculty want
to evaluate student work, and want to
talk about what it demonstrates in terms
of student learning.” The dean at Hobart
and William Smith Colleges indicated that
about a third of the faculty there have ac-
tively generated learning goals for their
courses and are seeking some outcome
measures, but these efforts are highly par-
ticularized to students in their courses. She
reported that efforts by The Teagle Foun-
dation to convene faculty from multiple
institutions to discuss how to improve
student learning has “softened faculty re-
sistance to assessment.” She noted that
“the minute talk turns to student work, and
faculty have students or student artifacts in
front of them, then the discussion is highly
energized and constructive.”
The president of CUNY LaGuardia in-
dicated that she has seen great improve-
ments in pedagogy as a result of devel-
oping a more meaningful approach to as-
sessing student work. Collecting student
Most�leaders�commented�that�the�key�to�advancing�assessment�is�for�it�
to�flow�more�directly�out�of�existing�processes�for�learning.�
Perspectives from Campus Leaders on the Current State
of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
(continued from page 2)
Assessment�Update� •� September–October�2010� •� Volume�22,�Number�5� •� ©�2010�Wiley�Periodicals,�Inc.� •� DOI�10.1002/au 15
work in e-portfolios and using rubrics
captured the interest of faculty and stu-
dents at LaGuardia. One approach to in-
volving faculty in assessment advocated
by some campus leaders is to simply
avoid the term “assessment” wherever
possible. As one dean put it, “there is lots
of interest in the topic, but not the tech-
nique or superstructure.” Helping faculty
improve their evaluation of student work
is one alternative approach. Another is
to use every opportunity to ask faculty:
“How do you make academic decisions
about what to teach, and how do you
know what your students are learning?”
Assessment Is Furthered
When It Is Woven into
Institutional Structures.
Nearly all campus leaders reported
that their progress in assessment in-
volved creating structures and mecha-
nisms to support and sustain assessment
activities and making assessment part of
standard institutional policies and pro-
cedures. At Ohio State University, for
example, departments must include stu-
dent learning outcomes to modify cur-
ricular requirements and must describe
methods to assess these goals. This
policy helped to facilitate the gradual
phasing in of required learning goals and
plans for assessment across a variety of
departments. Albany State University
adopted a similar approach by streamlin-
ing its required reports. Now, every re-
quired report—program reviews, annual
reports, and assessment reports—must
include information about student learn-
ing outcomes.
Developing assessment expertise is
also important. Several presidents and
deans reported encountering difficulty
in making the right choices about assess-
ment tools and approaches. One dean
noted, “We are confronted with a bewil-
dering array of techniques and instru-
ments.” Albany State developed a cadre
of assessment experts by creating a rotat-
ing, two-year appointment with course
release time for faculty members. Assess-
ment directors serve their two-year term
and then, armed with this experience,
return to their departments. According
to the director of institutional research,
“The faculty member’s colleagues are
now going to him [the faculty member
who rotated out of the term] whenever
they have assessment questions. . . . The
director that we have now is from the
College of Sciences and Health Profes-
sions, so we’ll work with her and then
she’ll rotate back to her full college duties
and we’ll pick somebody else, hopefully
from the College of Business, . . . until
we have faculty experts in assessment in
every college.”
Deans and directors of institutional
research at several institutions empha-
sized the importance of focusing on
what faculty members are already doing
in their classrooms in terms of learn-
ing outcomes assessment as the natural
place to begin to advance assessment.
At the University of Missouri, the direc-
tor of the office of assessment focused
on working with faculty in programs
who signaled they wanted to work with
him. His first step was asking program
faculty, “What do you want your under-
graduates to be able to do?”
In some institutions, faculty needed
help bringing their assessment practices
into the spotlight. Some faculty members
found welcome connections between as-
sessment activities and the scholarship of
teaching and learning, or within centers
for teaching and learning, while others
benefited from being involved in cross-
campus and in some cases cross-institu-
tion initiatives.
Final Thoughts
Assessment efforts are growing and
deepening on campuses, primarily im-
pelled by accreditation and other national
accountability initiatives. While support
from campus leadership is essential, real
progress requires that faculty members
take ownership of assessment processes
and outcomes, particularly at small col-
leges and universities. In addition, infra-
structure and policies must be stream-
lined to support assessment activities.
Pat Hutchings (2010) suggests a way into
faculty ownership by proposing six strat-
egies to make engagement more likely
and assessment more useful.
The potential of student learning out-
comes assessment activities and the ac-
creditation process are weakened when
assessment is undertaken primarily for
the purpose of satisfying accreditation re-
quirements. Authentic faculty ownership
of the assessment process and integra-
tion of assessment into supportive insti-
tutional structures have the greatest po-
tential to advance assessment of student
learning outcomes. ■
References:
Ewell, P. (2009, November). Assessment,
accountability, and improvement: Re-
visiting the tension. (NILOA Occasion-
al Paper No. 1). Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois and Indiana University, Na-
tional Institute for Learning Outcomes
Assessment.
Hutchings, P. (2010, April). Opening
doors to faculty involvement in as-
sessment. (NILOA Occasional Paper
No. 4). Urbana, IL: University of Illi-
nois and Indiana University, National
Institute for Learning Outcomes As-
sessment.
Jillian Kinzie is associate research
scientist at the Indiana University
Center for Postsecondary Research in
Bloomington, Indiana.
Faculty�are�interested�in�assessment�evidence�from�authentic�student�
work�that�is�directly�linked�to�teaching�and�learning.
Copyright of Assessment Update is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
