Outcomes Assessment

UW-Madison > Provost > Assessment

Home

Provost units

Diversity and Climate

Enrollment management

Office for Equity and Diversity

Extended Programs

Faculty and Staff

Teaching and Learning

Special initiatives

Strategic planning

Department Chair's Toolkit

Policies, reports, memos

Academic Planning and Analysis

Assessment of Academic Programs and Student Outcomes

Outcomes Assessment: 1997-98 Assessment Report

UW-Madison 1997-1998 Assessment Report

Introduction
General Education Reports
School/College Reports
Assessment Support Services Reports

Introduction

[Background]
[Role of the Provost's Office]
[Role of Support Offices]
[Introduction to the Main Report]

I. Background

A. Assessment as a part of strategic planning and continuous improvement

UW-Madison's 1988 self-study for institutional reaccreditation under the auspices of the North Central Association (NCA) developed recommendations regarding the future directions for this university. In the intervening years, many of those recommendations have been implemented. As an aid to implementation, the university administration established an Office of Quality Improvement to assist units throughout the institution to use techniques of quality management adapted to the higher education setting.

The College of Engineering was among the early users of the continuous improvement processes as it engaged in a redefinition of its curriculum. The Department of Industrial Engineering, for example, transformed its curriculum using data assembled from graduates and industrial partners. The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the Medical School, and the Department of Zoology examined their missions and goals and made changes to better adapt to changing situations in higher education and to the needs of their students. Several administrative units also made use of these techniques. The Graduate School reviewed issues such as satisfactory progress in graduate studies, traditional procedural rules and their place at the turn of the century, and approaches for effective program review. Other administrative units which made good use of these techniques include the Division of Housing, the Council on Academic Advising, and Student Academic Services.

Several new administrative processes accompanied continuous improvement and one of those was assessment. Many sectors of this institution have been involved throughout the last decade in a broad array of quality management functions, including assessment. To at least some extent, therefore, the institution was prepared for NCA's decision to make student outcomes assessment a part of the reaccreditation requirements. That is not to say, however, that the institution has been without the need to engage faculty in serious and often lengthy dialogue in explaining the role and value of student outcomes assessment.

B. Student Outcomes Assessment

In the late 1980's, the institutions of the UW System were directed to prepare assessment measures for rising junior assessment in verbal and quantitative skills. Subsequently when NCA moved to include student outcomes assessment as a major part of institutional reaccreditation, the Regents agreed that UW System institutions should seek approval for their respective plans developed to meet NCA guidelines and that these approved plans would then meet System assessment requirements. UW-Madison submitted its assessment plan in June, 1995 and was notified by NCA of its approval in September, 1996.

One major NCA assessment requirement is in the area of general education. The UW-Madison has been at work on processes to improve undergraduate education since the late 1980's. After several years of study by a special committee, a significant revision including several institution-wide requirements was instituted. Special emphasis was placed on requirements for communications and quantitative reasoning. Criteria for these new requirements were established by faculty committees. With criteria established, faculty were asked to propose courses. Another set of faculty committees then granted approval for these courses. The first academic year in which these new courses were required for incoming freshmen was the 1996-97 academic year.

Given the significant effort expended by the faculty in focussing on these two key general education requirements, the initial assessment measures for general education have been directed to these two areas. The university has a designated faculty person in charge of Quantitative Reasoning assessment and another for Communications. The Provost's Office and the Deans assist these faculty leaders in gaining institution-wide cooperation for their efforts.

The other significant NCA requirement concerns assessment in the major for both undergraduates and graduates. The academic deans have responsibility for developing appropriate assessment programs for each graduate and undergraduate major (or professional major) under their jurisdiction. The institution requires that each dean submit an annual report on assessment.

Deans are encouraged to use their academic planning councils to help monitor progress in assessment. They may also require an evaluation of the department's assessment program as part of program review. However, assessment is a process which must include annual activity by each department whereas program review, at least as currently constructed, is a periodic process. For additional information on assessment in the major, see the separate reports for each school and college.

II. Role of the Provost's Office

In accordance with all the research on assessment and the NCA guidelines, the primary responsibility for designing, adopting, and/or adapting appropriate assessment measures at UW-Madison resides with the faculty. Similarly, faculty hold the responsibility for using the feedback from those measures to improve the curricula at all levels within the institution.

Like many major institutions of comparable size, the UW-Madison follows the practice of decentralizing leadership responsibility. Schools and colleges are the most appropriate sites for assessment responsibility in the major. Overall responsibility for assessment at UW-Madison, however, resides with the Provost and the assessment activity throughout the campus is coordinated and monitored by a member of the Provost's staff.

The institution also uses a university-wide Assessment Council as a vehicle for sharing ideas in this evolving area. The Council includes a representative designated by each academic dean, the two faculty members responsible for general education, and a representative from each of the 4 service units which provide support for assessment. It is chaired by the member of the Provost's staff responsible for assessment coordination.

Not long after the 1988 NCA reaccreditation visit to UW-Madison, staff from the Provost's office began working with the UW Survey center to conduct an important annual survey of approximately 1,200 undergraduate students. The purpose of the survey is to learn how the quality of undergraduate education can be improved. For the last six years, the survey contained a core set questions asked each year; additional topical modules have been included in recent years. In the most recent survey, new topics include student satisfaction with the Ethnic Studies Requirement (a general education requirement for all undergraduates) and writing in classes. In the previous year, a topical module focused on student advising. These survey results provide important assessment information that enables units across campus to engage in continuous improvement.

Effective with the 1997-98 year, assessment is a major subject heading within the Provost's website. In previous years, we have printed numerous copies of this annual report and of the assessment manual and made them available throughout the institution. These items are now available on the website. The expectation for the future is that this website will now substitute for most of those printed materials. We believe that faculty will also benefit from a website assessment manual which can more easily be kept up-to-date than any printed version.

The university administration has provided a quarter million dollars annually to assist in the process of general education assessment and for special needs for departments working on assessment in the major. In the 1980's, the Regents made an effort to obtain new funds from the State for the emerging assessment requirements. Unfortunately, state government did not respond and the entire assessment effort has been funded by reallocating funds within the existing budget. These limited funds are used as catalysts. Throughout the institution, assessment processes must be designed using creative ideas which can be self-sustaining with only an occasional boost from the special funds.

III. Role of Support Offices

Academic units undertaking student outcomes assessment may draw upon a number of academic support units: the Center for Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation and Dissemination (LEAD), the Office of Quality Improvement, the Office for Testing and Evaluation, and the UW Survey Center. Each unit has included a report of its activities in this report and more detailed information of its services can be found in the assessment manual.

Departments are encouraged to make use of these various services when they have an idea regarding assessment which can be enhanced by using the expertise of these units. Departments must recognize, however, that the ultimate success for assessment is dependent on direct and continuing faculty involvement. The role of the units must remain as assistive rather than as a substitute for faculty activity.

Faculty in the Teaching Academy are also taking a special look at assessment through an Academy task force on "Student Assessment of Learning." The activity of this task force can be seen at http://www.wisc.edu/teaching-academy/taskforces.html

IV. Introduction to the Main Report

During each academic year, participation in student outcomes assessment activity has expanded throughout the institution. Some departments have been slower to leave the starting gate and in those cases, the associate dean within the school or college is working with them to help them get on board. We find, however, numerous places where faculty are now more purposefully exploring the myriad ways outcomes assessment results can be used in order to improve student learning through curricular and programmatic modification.

The faculty in the College of Engineering, for example, working with staff from the LEAD center, are deeply involved in assessment at the undergraduate and graduate level. Using a number of methods, the data that has been gathered is now being used by faculty in every department to enhance the education of students in the College of Engineering. The College's plans for the upcoming year include the development of course objective and department-level outcomes and measures, and the launching of a student portfolio project.

The School of Human Ecology, under the guidance of its Assessment Council, initiated "Project APEAL" (Assessment and Planning for Enhanced Academic Learning), with the goal of designing a student assessment system for use in on-going programmatic decision-making to enhance academic learning. Faculty in a number of program areas have developed statements of expected student outcomes, and assessment activities are appropriately directed at these identified outcomes. Furthermore, student outcomes assessment activities have been closely tied to the School's ongoing strategic planning efforts.

In the College of Letters and Science we find numerous departments engaging in meaningful outcomes assessment activities. For example, in the Department of English, portfolios of undergraduates' papers and exams are regularly gathered and reviewed by a committee. Information from these reviews is used to adjust the undergraduate curriculum, in conjunction with student questionnaires. In the Department of Geography, faculty analyze student performance in classes, including the capstone undergraduate colloquium, as well as survey results, to generate information that can be used for programmatic improvement. In the Department of Mathematics, faculty use embedded questions, exit interviews and surveys and alumni surveys for assessment purposes. This department formed an Undergraduate Major Assessment Committee that reports both to the full department, but specifically to the Undergraduate Program Committee, where recommendations for curricular change can be considered and implemented as appropriate.

These are just a few examples of the assessment activities presently underway in schools and colleges across the UW-Madison campus. From the plans submitted for 1998-99, there is every expectation that the level of involvement will be further increased. Both the report of current status and those plans for the future are laid out in the sections which follow.

Office of the Provost | UW Home