Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1: The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.
Off-site review question:
The College, through its Educational Policy Committee, has reviewed and assessed its general education program since it was put into practice in 1996. Purposes and expectations have been delineated and evaluative materials include “the course syllabus, a narrative linking course experiences to learning expectations, and a sample of student work that demonstrates student learning relevant to the expectations.”
A number of departments have generated student-learning expectations and linked them to elements of their curriculum. Most have evaluation methods to measure these expectations and plans for making improvements in learning. However, there are a substantial number of departments that are not yet in compliance.
Response:
In the response to Core Requirement 2.5, we reported that “more than 85% percent of academic and administrative units have developed PIE plans.” That calculation is correct, as is evidenced in the PIE Implementation Status document that is cited. Reviewers looking at the Original PIE database, however, would come to a different conclusion because we had not finished entering data into the database. Some departments and programs had completed institutional effectiveness profiles that did not get uploaded because we were completing work on the design of the database. Others have since provided the information. We now have entered all of the completed academic PIEs, including profiles for all academic departments and programs in Arts and Sciences, for the freshman seminar, and for the General Education Requirements (GERs). See Process of Institutional Effectiveness - Academic. The profiles are best viewed using “view in table format option.”
All Arts and Sciences departments and programs have developed profiles that describe unit purposes, expectations for student learning, and learning experiences. Eighty-four percent also have described arrangements for ongoing evaluation of student learning. The profiles are included in periodic program reviews, which involve scheduled assessments of all arts and sciences departments and programs by external reviewers. (See Program Review Handbook.) The program review materials document the extent to which learning expectations are being met and department chairs, program directors, deans, and the Provost use the evaluation results to inform planning, decision making, and budgeting. The next review cycle is getting underway this spring.
We are working with the other schools (Business, Law, Education, and Marine Science) to complete entry into the database of information that is consistent with their accrediting standards and special needs.
Index for Supporting References: